Wyzwania dla japońskich inwestorów w międzynarodowym arbitrażu (kokusai chūsai) jako narzędziu rozwiązywania sporów komercyjnych

Hiroshi Kaneko, Shota Inoue

Streszczenie w języku polskim


Obecność japońskich inwestorów na międzynarodowej scenie arbitrażowej jest niewielka w porównaniu do jej skali gospodarczej. Japońskie prawo arbitrażowe jest zgodne z UNCITRAL Model Law (1985) ze zmianą w 2006 r., a Japonia jest członkiem konwencji nowojorskiej z 1958 r. Z kolei japońska terminologia prawna odpowiadająca arbitrażowi (chūsai), włączona do współczesnego języka japońskiego w XIX w., jest myląca. Chińskie prawo powstrzymuje podmioty krajowe, w tym te z kapitałem zagranicznym, przed zwracaniem się do zagranicznych trybunałów arbitrażowych, co może utrudniać japońskim inwestorom w Chinach rozstrzyganie sporów w drodze arbitrażu. Przedstawienie przez obie strony sporu tematu oraz zadawanie pytań świadkowi przeciwnej strony, popularne w międzynarodowych arbitrażach, nie są istotne w japońskich postępowaniach sądowych. Ponieważ TPF (Third Party Funding) nie jest wdrażany w arbitrażach w Japonii, japońscy inwestorzy mogą cierpieć z powodu luk ideowych w taktyce arbitrażowej. Znaczenie CISG/UNIDROIT w arbitrażu międzynarodowym rośnie. Ze względu na to, że japońskie sądy nie odwołują się do nich aktywnie, japońscy inwestorzy mogą mieć do nich dostęp rzadziej niż ich zagraniczni odpowiednicy, co stanowi potencjalne ryzyko w kształtowaniu strategii arbitrażowych. Problemem jest również niedobór arbitrów posiadających japońskie wykształcenie prawnicze. Japońska mentalność prawna skłania raczej do wyboru dialogu niż konfrontacji z drugą stroną przed sądem lub trybunałami arbitrażowymi. Z uwagi na fakt, że japońskie prawo arbitrażowe spełnia najnowsze wymogi UNCITRAL, a rząd wyrazi zamiar do ratyfikowania najnowszych traktatów arbitrażowych, w tym Konwencję singapurską o mediacji z 2019 r. (ratyfikowaną przez Japonię 1 października 2023 r.), japońscy inwestorzy najprawdopodobniej będą w przyszłości częściej korzystać z arbitrażu międzynarodowego.


Słowa kluczowe


prawo arbitrażowe; Japonia; Chiny; mediacja; arbitraż; Międzynarodowy Sąd Arbitrażowy w Singapurze; Japońskie Stowarzyszenie Arbitrażu Handlowego; UNIDROIT; TPF

Pełny tekst:

PDF (English)

Bibliografia


LITERATURE

Arison A., Price Reviews and Arbitrations in Asian LNG Markets, “Oxford Institute for Energy Studies Paper” 2019, no. 144.

Asai T., Ōba H., Iguchi N., Sugimoto K., 2019 Cross-examination Workshop Report (II), “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2020, vol. 67(2). [in Japanese]

Berger K.P., UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, An Article-by-Article Commentary, “Arbitration International” 2018, vol. 34(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiy020.

Coetzee J., The Interplay Between Incoterms® and the CISG, “Journal of Law & Commerce” 2013, vol. 32(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jlc.2013.39.

Cole T., Commercial Arbitration in Japan: Contributions to the Debate on “Japanese Non-Litigiousness”, “New York University Journal of International Law and Politics” 2007, vol. 40(1).

Fāng X., Current Situation and Issues of Foreign Arbitration Institutions Taking Chinese Cities as the Place of Arbitration, “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2021, vol. 68(9). [in Japanese]

Fujimoto R., Factual Analysis of Court Cases Where Description Documents (chinjyutu sho) Were Submitted: Preparatory Study for Identifying the Usage of Description Documents (chinjyutu sho), “Ritsumeikan Hōgaku” 2000, vol. 271–272(3–4). [in Japanese]

Harris P., Growing New Wings: The Rise of International Arbitration in Japan, “Asian International Arbitration Journal” 2021, vol. 17(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/AIAJ2021002.

Kajita Y., The Possibility of Arbitration to Resolve Disputes Between Chinese Corporations Outside China (Part II), “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2019, vol. 66(10). [in Japanese]

Kakiuchi S., Civil Law Style Arbitration: A Comparative Study of JCAA Interactive Arbitration Rules and Prague Rules, “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2020, vol. 67(1). [in Japanese]

Kayaoǧlu T., Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China, Cambridge 2013.

Kodama M., Practical Considerations on Governing Law and Dispute Resolution Clauses in International Contracts, “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2021, vol. 68(2). [in Japanese]

Kun F., “Globalization” of International Arbitration – Rethinking Tradition: Modernity and East-West Binaries through Examples of China and Japan, “University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review” 2015, vol. 11.

Lansing P., Wechselblatt M., Doing Business in Japan: The Importance of the Unwritten Law, “The International Lawyer” 1983, vol. 17(40).

Lee I., Practice and Predicament: The Nationality of the International Arbitrator (with Survey Results), “Fordham International Law Journal” 2007, vol. 31(1).

Midorikawa Y., Third Party Funding as a Legal Infrastructure for International Disputes: Why We Need It in Japan, “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2022, vol. 69(2). [in Japanese]

Nagashima T., Yasukuni T., Comparison in Practice Between “Japanese” Arbitration and Foreign Arbitration, “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2022, vol. 69(2). [in Japanese]

Nakabayashi K., Interpretation of Contracts in International Arbitration, “Shūdō hōgaku” 2017, vol. 39(2). [in Japanese]

Nakamura T., Overview of Arbitration Law, Tokyo 2022. [in Japanese]

Nakamura T., Nottage L., Arbitration in Japan, “Sydney Law School. Legal Studies Research Paper” 2012 (12/39).

Osajima H., Comparison of International Commercial Arbitration and Litigation Procedure in Japan: A Practitioner’s Perspective, “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2022, vol. 69(5). [in Japanese]

Ōnuki M., Export and Import Contracts with Asian Companies after UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (Vienna Sales Convention) Being Effective in Japan, “Journal of Japan Academy for Asian Market Economies” 2010, vol. 13. [in Japanese]

Profaizer J.E., Dittmann E.W., Taniguchi S., Current International Arbitration Practice and Challenges for Japanese Corporations, “Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal” 2021, vol. 68(11). [in Japanese]

Singapore International Arbitration Center, Annual Reports, various issues.

Takakura T., Evolution of the Role of Description Documents (chinjyutu sho) Before and After the Amendment of the Current Civil Procedure Code, “Chiba University Hōgaku Ronshū” 2008, vol. 23(3). [in Japanese]

Uchida T., Age for Contracts: Japanese Society and the Contract Law, Tokyo 2009. [in Japanese]

Uchida T., Contract Law Reform in Japan and the UNIDROIT Principles, “Uniform Law Review” 2011, vol. 16(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/16.3.705.

UNCITRAL, HCCH and UNIDROIT Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales, Vienna 2021.

Yang Y., On the Overlap of Articles in International Conventions on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: International Legislation Trend and Problems in the Existing Arbitration System in China, “Kobe College Studies” 2015, vol. 62(2). [in Japanese]

ONLINE SOURCES

American Bar Association, How Courts Work: Steps in a Trial, 9.9.2019, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/crossexam (access: 11.11.2023).

Brink H., The Singapore Convention on Mediation: Where’s Europe?, 26.3.2021, https://mediate.com/the-singapore-convention-on-mediation-wheres-europe (access: 11.11.2023).

CUATRECASAS, China Offices: Legal Flash. 2020 – Year in Review, 2021, https://www.cuatrecasas.com/resources/1614246526en-60409cac0c2c2534692611.pdf?v1.54.1.20230608 (access: 11.11.2023).

International Chamber of Commerce, 2020 ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics, https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-2020-icc-dispute-resolution-statistics (access: 11.11.2023).

International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics: 2023, https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/icc-dispute-resolution-statistics-2023 (access: 3.9.2024).

Kansai Hayabusa Law Firm, Actual Interrogation Scenes, http://www.k-hayabusa.com/topics/69 (access: 11.11.2023). [in Japanese]

Lichtenstein F., International Arbitration Law and Rules in China, https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-international-arbitration/china (access: 11.11.2023).

Margolis E., Japan Doesn’t Want to Become Another Casualty of English, 26.5.2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/26/japan-doesnt-want-to-become-anothe-casualty-of-english (access: 11.11.2023).

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Survey on the Number of the Overseas Japanese Companies’ Operation Units, https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/ecm/ec/page22_003410.html (access: 11.11.2023). [in Japanese]

Ministry of Justice of PRC, Administrative Measures for Registration of Business Offices Established by Overseas Arbitration Institutions in China (Beijing) Pilot Free Trade Zone, http://en.moj.gov.cn/2021-01/01/c_579217_2.htm (access: 11.11.2023).

Norton Rose Fulbright, Maintenance and Champerty, 2016, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/bf0fd6fe/maintenance-and-champerty (access: 11.11.2023).

Ōnuki M., Business Disputes Settlement between Japan and China: Promotion of International Commercial Arbitration, 15.5.2013, https://www.kansai-u.ac.jp/Keiseiken/publication/seminar/asset/seminar13/s200_3.pdf (access: 11.11.2023). [in Japanese]

Pinsent Masons, Jurisdiction Guide to Third Party Funding in International Arbitration, 7.5.2021, https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/third-party-funding-international-arbitration (access: 11.11.2023).

Singapore International Arbitration Center, SIAC Panel Japanese language, https://siac.org.sg/siac-panel?_sfm_siac_panel_languages=Japanese (access: 11.11.2023).

State Council of the PRC, State Council’s Notice on the Program on Further Deepening the Reform and Opening-up of China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone, 15.4.2015, https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2015-04/20/content_9631.html (access: 11.11.2023). [in Chinese]

Supreme People’s Court of the PRC, Interpretation of the SPC on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC on 29 December 2020, https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/62/84/2133.html (access: 11.11.2023). [in Chinese]

Supreme People’s Court of the PRC, Opinion on Providing Judicial Guarantees for the Construction of Pilot Free Trade Zones, updated on 17 January 2017, https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/199/411/807.html (access: 11.11.2023).

Supreme People’s Court of the PRC, Interpretation of the SPC on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the PRC on Foreign-Related Civil Relations (I), effective from 13 April 2013, https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/199/201/679.html (access: 11.11.2023).

LEGAL ACTS

Japanese law

Attorney Act (Bengoshi Hō), Act No. 205 of 1949.

Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Dai Nippon Teikoku Kempō) proclaimed on 15 February 1889.

Current Japanese Civil Procedure Code (Minji Soshō Hō), Act. No. 109 of 1996.

Former Japanese Civil Procedure Code (Minji Soshō Hō), Act. No. 29 of 1890.

Japanese Arbitration Act (Chūsai Hō), Act No. 138 of 2003, with amendments (Act. No. 15 of 2023).

Chinese law

Civil Procedure Code (zhònghuá rénmín gònghéguó mínshì sùsòng fǎ), the fourth amendment in 2021 (Fourth amended by the Decision on Amending the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC of the Thirty-second Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress on 24 December 2021).

Law on Arbitration (zhòngcái fǎ) (Decree No. 31 of the President of PRC on 31 August 1994).

Law on the Applicable Law to Foreign-Related Civil Relations (zhònghuá rénmín gònghéguó shèwài mínshì guānxì fǎ lǜshì yòngfǎ) (Decree No. 36 of the President of the PRC on 28 October 2010).

Other laws

German Civil Procedure Code (Civilprozeßordnung), Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt Band 1877, Nr. 6, Seite 83–243.

New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards), signed on 10 June 1958.

Singapore Convention on Mediation (United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation) adopted on 20 December 2018.

UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) with amendments, adopted in 2006.

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG, or 1980 Vienna Sales Convention), signed on 11 April 1980.

CASE LAW

Arbitral Award of Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration of the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, 28 January 2009.

Arbitral Award of ICC International Court of Arbitration, ICC 18728, date and year unknown.

Arbitral Award of ICC International Court of Arbitration, ICC-FA-2020-226.

Arbitral Award of ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 15949, May 2012.

Arbitral Award of International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, 2 January 2007.

Judgment of the Federal Court of Switzerland (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht), 4A 240/2009, 16 December 2009.

Judgment of the First Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai, Siemens International Trading (Shanghai) Co., v Shanghai Golden Landmark Co., Ltd. (2013), Hu Yizhong Minren (Waizhong) Zi No. 2, 27 November 2015.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2024.33.3.75-97
Data publikacji: 2024-09-27 21:28:06
Data złożenia artykułu: 2023-11-15 11:30:36


Statystyki


Widoczność abstraktów - 514
Pobrania artykułów (od 2020-06-17) - PDF (English) - 0

Wskaźniki



Odwołania zewnętrzne

  • Brak odwołań zewnętrznych


Prawa autorskie (c) 2024 Hiroshi Kaneko, Shota Inoue

Creative Commons License
Powyższa praca jest udostępniana na lcencji Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.