仲裁員為誰仲裁？

仲裁的一大特徵在於當事人可以自行選定仲裁庭組成人員。當事人通常約定：仲裁庭由三名仲裁員組成；一方當事人有權任命一名仲裁員，第三名仲裁員由各方共同任命並擔任首席仲裁員。仲裁過程中，仲裁員在仲裁協議授予的許可權內對爭議進行裁判、作出裁決，進而獲得當事各方支付的報酬。

就此，不禁要問：仲裁員和當事人之間是什麼關係？仲裁員是否隸屬於當事人，因而需要完全依照當事人的意志行事？仲裁員是否具有獨立於當事人的職責和義務，因而可以在特定情況下排除當事人的約定？這些問題在Jivraj v Hashwani案中得到較為充分的討論。本文以下對該案進行介紹，供大家思考。

一、事實概述

1981年1月29日，Jivraj和Hashwani簽訂合資協議並約定：爭議應提交由三名仲裁員組成的仲裁庭仲裁，且三名仲裁員均應是Ismailicommunity[1]里有聲望的成員。之後雙方發生爭議，Hashwani指定Anthony Colman為仲裁員。

由於Anthony Colman不是Ismaili community的成員，Jivraj反對將其指定為仲裁員。Hashwani則主張，仲裁協議中關於仲裁員必須是Ismaili community成員的約定構成宗教歧視，違反《就業平等（宗教或信仰）法》，[2]應屬無效。

該案歷經三審。2011年7月27日，英國最高法院作出終審判決，推翻上訴法院關於涉案仲裁協議無效的認定，支持了一審法院的立場。

二、判決理由

英國最高法院認為，要構成《就業平等（宗教或信仰）法》規制的勞動關係，雙方之間必須存在隸屬關係（subordination）。基於如下理由，仲裁員和當事人之間的關係不具有該等特徵，仲裁員應屬於「准司法裁判人員」（quasi-judicial adjudicator）：

(1)仲裁員並非依據當事人的指示提供服務並賺取報酬；

(2)仲裁員在諸多重要方面獨立於當事人，其職責要求其超脫於當事各方的利益，不得為任一方的特定利益行事，而應自行決定如何解決各方之間的對立立場；

(3)在英國法及其他仲裁法和仲裁規則中，仲裁員有義務公正且獨立地行事，依據案件具體情況適用合適的程序規則，以公平地解決爭議。一旦接受指定，仲裁員原則上不受當事方的控制，且僅在極端情況下才可能被移除。

對於仲裁員和當事人之間的關係，Lord Mance援引了德國最高法院的相關說理：

「It does not seem permissible to treat the arbitrator as equivalent to a representative or an employee or an entrepreneur.His office has …. an entirely special character, which distinguishes him from other persons handling the affairs of third parties. He has to decide a legal dispute in the same way as and instead of a judge, identifying the law by matching the relevant facts to the relevant legal provisions. The performance expected from him is the award, which constitutes the goal and outcome of his activity.It is true that the extent of his powers depends on the arbitration agreement, which can to a greater or lesser extent prescribe the way to that goal for him. But, apart from this restriction, his position is entirely free, freer than that of an ordinary judge」.

Lord Mance還援引了Gary Born在《International Commercial Arbitration (2009)》的相關論述：

It makes no sense to treat the arbitrator』s contract as an agency agreement. Under most legal systems, that characterization would require the arbitrator to follow the parties』 directions and to provide the parties with information and an accounting– all of which can only with difficulty, if at all, be assimilated to the adjudicative role of an arbitrator.

Moreover,the role of an agent is inconsistent with the arbitrator』s adjudicative function – which is precisely to be independent of the parties.This was underscored by a French appellate decision, which held that an agreement for the parties 』『representatives』 to resolve their dispute could not be an arbitration agreement:

『A stipulation of that kind is incompatible with the actual concept of arbitration, sincethe arbitrators, though appointed by the parties, can under no circumstances become their representatives. That would imply, in particular, that they represent the parties and account for their functions. Such a role, and the obligations it entails, are alien to the functions of an arbitrator, which are judicial in nature.』

Equally, regarding the arbitrator as a service provider, like an accountant, investment banker, lawyer, or other professional, ignores the essential adjudicative character of his or her mandate.Arbitrators do not merely provide the parties with a service, but also serve a public, adjudicatory function that cannot be entirely equated with the provision of service in a commercial relationship.The proper analysis is therefore to regard the arbitrator』s contract as a sui generis agreement specifying the terms on which this adjudicative function is to be exercised vis-à-vis particular parties and on particular terms.」

三、簡評

Jivraj v Hashwani案重申了仲裁員地位的特殊性。一方面，仲裁員與當事人之間存在合同關係，具體表現為：仲裁員接受當事人指定，提供專業服務並收取報酬。另一方面，仲裁員又不是一般的服務提供者，具體表現為仲裁員提供服務受制於「正當程序」的要求，且其提供的最終成果（即仲裁裁決）被法律賦予強制執行力。

這一區分會影響到其他問題的認定，尤其是仲裁員的責任豁免問題。由於合同關係的存在，仲裁員未依仲裁協議履行職責時，理應對當事人承擔違約責任。然而，考慮到仲裁員「准司法裁判人員」地位，其亦應享有豁免權利。最終的豁免程度取決於立法者對兩個關係的權衡。

[1]The Ismaili communitycomprises Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims. It is led by the Aga Khan, whose title isthe hereditary title of the Imam of the Ismaili community, https://the.ismaili/about-us-0.

[2]These Regulations prohibitdiscrimination on grounds of religion when choosing between persons offeringpersonal services.

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！