观点 | Neil Kaplan QC：我们应该如何适应新冠病毒下的新情况
编者按：2020年伊始，Covid-19的出现改变了人类交往的方式。同时，Covid-19也给国际仲裁实践带来了挑战，包括技术层面和法律层面的挑战。Neil Kaplan QC在《环球法律评论》（Global Arbitration Review, GAR）撰文呼吁仲裁界必须适应Covid-19。《观点》栏目将汇集国际仲裁名家观点，欢迎投稿。
仲裁员Neil Kaplan QC就仲裁庭与仲裁机构如何必须适应因新冠病毒大流行造成的保持社交距离这一全新时代进行了讨论，他同时呼吁扩大对视频会议的使用，并增强在延期案件中支付仲裁员报酬的灵活性。
新冠病毒危机已经改变了我们生活的方式，而当这场病毒大流行结束后，世界也许会变得不同。
我们进行仲裁的方式也必须改变。病毒大流行加之对环境的担忧让我们对进行仲裁的方式有了全新的认识。此外，如果庭审被长期休庭，也将会对一些有着真实诉求的当事方造成实质的困难。目前的状况一定不能被转化成为违约者的天堂。
视频会议已经存在了一段时间了，但其使用一直是作为特例而非常规。改变这一现状的时点难道还未到来吗？视频会议难道不应成为新的常态吗？考虑到这一方式对时间、费用更不必说对人力损耗的节省，我一直无法完全理解为何很多律师都不愿意同意视频开庭。
视频会议的安排理应成为所有程序性庭审及案件会议的标准做法。对程序早期的初步庭审以及有关临时措施的庭审也应如此。
至于有证人出席的实体庭审，在系统兼容并经过测试的情况下，视频会议也能良好运作。我曾通过视频进行过法定审裁处的庭审，庭审持续了数日，当时仅有我一人身处伦敦，而其他所有人都在香港。庭审进行地非常顺利并包括了证人作证环节。
在当前危机形势下，由于人们不得不保持社交距离，因此每一场庭审都会有多个接入点，而一个系统的好坏将取决于其最弱的一环，这时困难便出现了。
一个常被提出的问题是，如果一方证人需要通过视频作证，而另一方的证人亲临了庭审现场，可能会存在不公平。我不确定我能理解此种担忧。为什么律师会假定仲裁庭会基于证人是亲临庭审还是在大屏幕上参与庭审而对证人进行区别对待？无论证言是通过何种形式作出的，重要的仍然是证言本身的价值以及仲裁庭对其证明力的认定。
视频庭审一直在不断改进。一个重要的特征是首席仲裁员（或是其他人）能够控制摄像头，使得正在讲话的人能够占据整个屏幕。如果不能推进镜头放大显示发言者（当然最好是每次仅有一个人发言），一个显示了围坐在会议桌前的很多人的屏幕其实并无多大帮助。
对电子审讯、档案管理系统以及文字实录等可远程接入系统越来越多的使用，将有助于对视频庭审进行补充。我相信前述服务的主要供应商将会针对当下已经发生变化的形势迅速做出应对。确实没有任何理由可以解释为何一名或多名仲裁员不能在舒适的办公室或家里进行整个庭审。
仲裁机构在此次病毒大流行中采取了快速且负责的应对措施。它们对其职员进行了保护，并远程提供服务。一些位于病毒得到控制的法域的机构，例如香港国际仲裁中心，在采取了包括对全体到场人员测量体温的全面防护措施的情况下组织庭审。
然而，仲裁机构在病毒大流行的情况下仍必须对其程序做出改变。尤其是采取按照标的金额收费模式的机构，在所有因病毒休庭的案件中均需引入更多的灵活性。诸如国际商会国际仲裁院等仲裁机构坐拥着当事方以预付金形式提交的大笔款项。仲裁员可能已经为某一案件的准备工作耗费了大量的时间，但该案件却因非仲裁员自身的过错而突然被迫休庭数月。明年的开庭日期将变得非常宝贵。
为确保仲裁员不被置于艰难的处境中，需要有更大的灵活性。现在有更多的仲裁员是全职工作，就像国际商会仲裁院需要支付其职员的薪水一样，他们也需要支付其雇员的薪水。但如果坚持仅在案件完成后才向其支付主要的款项，将对这些仲裁员造成不必要的困难。现金流对仲裁员的重要性就如同对建筑承包商一样！
在目前这一无比艰难的环境下，所有仲裁机构都需要引入灵活性以确保仲裁员能够按照实际已完成的工作获取报酬，而不受制于并不适应这一困难时期需求的内部规则。
在结束本文的时候，还是说一点积极的东西吧：Vis模拟仲裁比赛的东区赛程昨晚达到了高潮。因为新冠病毒的原因，今年的比赛是采用由eBram（这是一家香港的为亚太经合组织地区提供线上争议解决服务的非营利初创企业）支持的微软团队通过视频进行的。
这一视频竞赛的参加人员包括了来自世界各地的71支队伍和250名仲裁员（而且各地区时差巨大）。在由Paula Hodges QC，Sabine Stricker-Keller和Winnie Tam QC分别从她们各自的家中做出裁判之后，香港中文大学代表队最终取得了决赛的胜利。
这一模拟仲裁比赛进行的非常顺利并凸显了视频技术可以完成的工作。这一比赛的组织工作可要比开庭时连接双方律师和仲裁庭要难的多得多。
下周，规模更大的Vis模拟仲裁全球比赛也要首次通过视频进行了。这一比赛通常是在维也纳举行的。因此，当我们可以安全地通过视频连线进行工作并同时可以遵守政府健康指引的时候，完全没有任何借口可以终止庭审或类似的程序。
本文由Neil Kaplan QC著，李艾弥译，马志华校。原文刊载于《环球仲裁评论》（Global Arbitration Review，GAR）2020年3月3日。
GAR Article: Kaplan: How we must adapt to Covid-19
Arbitrator
Neil Kaplan QC discusses how tribunals and institutions will have to
adapt to the new era of social distancing ushered in by the coronavirus
pandemic, calling for greater use of video conferencing and flexibility
when it comes to compensating arbitrators for delayed cases.
The covid-19 crisis has changed the way we live and the world may look different when the current pandemic is over.
The way we conduct arbitrations will also have to change. The combination of pandemic(s) and environmental concerns mandate a fresh look at how we conduct arbitrations. Further, substantial hardship will be caused to some parties with genuine claims if hearings are adjourned for substantial periods of time. The current situation must not be turned into a defaulter's heaven.
Video
conferencing has been around for some time but it is always the
exception, not the rule. Has not the time come to reverse that? Should
it not be the new norm? I have never quite understood the reluctance on
the part of many counsel to agree to the use of video hearings when one
bears in mind the great saving in time and cost, not to mention human
wear and tear.
Surely
video-conferencing facilities should be the norm for all procedural
hearings and case conferences. The same applies for early openings and
interim measures.
As
for the main hearing, video conferencing can work well provided the
systems are compatible and have been subjected to testing. I have
conducted a statutory tribunal hearing by video for several days where I
was the only one in London and everyone else was in Hong Kong. It
worked perfectly well and included witness testimony.
The
difficulty will arise during the current crisis that, as people have to
exercise social distancing, there will be many connections necessary
for each hearing and the system is only as good as its weakest link.
One
concern often raised about virtual hearings is possible unfairness if
one side’s witnesses have to give evidence by video but the other sides
are physically present. I am not sure I quite understand this fear. Why
should counsel assume that the tribunal will treat witnesses differently
depending on whether they are physically present or on a screen? Surely
what matters is the value of the testimony, however given, and what
weight the tribunal attaches to it.
Video
hearings are improving all the time. One feature that is important is
for the presiding arbitrator (or someone else) to be able to control the
camera so that whoever is speaking takes up the full screen. It is not
very helpful to have a screen that shows many people sitting around the
table without being able to zoom in on the speaker (hopefully one at a
time).
The
increased use of e-trial systems, document management systems and
transcripts which can all be accessed remotely will help to supplement
the video hearing. I am sure the major providers of these services will
react quickly to the changed circumstances. There is really no reason
why an arbitrator or arbitrators cannot conduct a full hearing from the
comfort of the office or the home.
Institutions have reacted quickly and responsibly to the pandemic. They have guarded their staff and are supplying their services remotely. Some institutions in jurisdictions where the virus has been controlled, such as the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, are hosting hearings with full protections in place, including taking the temperature of all arrivals.
However, the institutions will also have to make changes to their procedures in the light of the pandemic. In particular, those that operate an ad valorem pricing system will need to introduce more flexibility in light of all the adjourned cases as a result of the virus. Institutions like the ICC International Court of Arbitration are sitting on huge sums paid by the parties by way of deposit. Arbitrators may have spent many hours preparing for a case that suddenly, and through no fault of their own, gets adjourned for many months. Dates are going to be at a premium next year.
Much more flexibility is needed to ensure that arbitrators are not placed in difficult positions. Arbitrators, many more of whom are now full-time, have to pay their staff just as the ICC has to pay its staff. But to insist on the major payment being made only after completion of the case will cause unnecessary hardship. Cash flow is as important to arbitrators as it is to building contractors!
In these difficult and unparalleled circumstances, all institutions need to introduce flexibility to ensure that arbitrators are compensated for work actually done and are not subjected to internal rules that are not fit for purpose in such terrible times.
To
end on a positive note, last night saw the culmination of the Vis Moot
East, which because of the coronavirus was this year conducted virtually
using Microsoft Teams supported by eBram [a Hong Kong not for profit
start-up to provide online dispute resolution for the APEC region].
The virtual competition involved 71 teams and 250 arbitrators from all over the world (and from wildly different timezones) and was won by the Chinese University of Hong Kong following a final judged by Paula Hodges QC, Sabine Stricker-Keller and Winnie Tam QC, all from their homes.
The moot worked remarkably well and underscores
what can be done virtually. This was a far harder project to arrange
than just connecting two sets of counsel and the tribunal, as is
required for an arbitration hearing.
Next
week, the even larger Vis moot, which normally takes place in Vienna,
will also be conducted virtually for the first time. So there is no
excuse to shut down hearings and the like when we have the ability to
work virtually and safely and in accordance with government health
guidelines.
（上下滑动可阅读全文）
声明：《观点》栏目文章仅代表作者本人观点，不代表HKIAC的立场和观点。
获取更多信息，请点击“阅读原文”。
------------------------
相关阅读
------------------------
HKIAC Webinar - Virtual Hearings: How best to proceed? HKIAC Insights