专业团队

    在1988年上海市高级人民法院在“中国技术进出口总公司诉瑞士工业资源公司案”和 1997年在“江苏省物资集团轻工纺织总公司诉（香港）裕亿集团有限公司、（加拿大）太子发展有限公司案”以及1997年1月至4月，"四川省欧亚经贸总公司诉韩国新湖商社"三个个典型的案例中，可以看到主合同欺诈或信用证欺诈(如四川省欧亚经贸总公司诉韩国新湖商社)情况下仲裁条款是否独立在我国的司法实践上有很大转变。对于本问题无论是在理论上还是实践中都具有重要意义。而作为仲裁制度的基石-----仲裁协议，不仅是双方当事人愿意将争议提交仲裁的意思表示，而且还是仲裁机关得以仲裁该项争议的依据，因而本文从合同欺诈这个层面来考察仲裁条款的独立性，对仲裁条款独立性理论基础及现实基础进行分析，从不同方面论述在合同欺诈情况下仲裁条款的独立性问题。（一） 从合同对价看仲裁条款与主合同的关系英美法认为，对价（Consideration）是指当事人为了取得合同利益所付出的代价。按照英美法和法国法的规定，合同只有在有对价或约因时，才是法律上有效的合同，无对价或无约因的合同，是得不到法律保障的。仲裁条款的签订，即被当事人在相互讨价还价后，仲裁协议中解决争议的方式，程序等等一般来讲就不是各方当事人认为解决纠纷最优的方案，因为仲裁协议的方案是当事人各自认为最优方案博弈的结果，一般来讲是折中的方案。当事人为什么要放弃自己认为最优的解决争议的方案，接受折中的方案，即仲裁协议的方案？作者认为，其原因在于仲裁条款与主合同的关系，即当事人本着对合同当事人能以诚实信用原则行事的信赖，在合同条款上表现为仲裁条款上损失或者收益与主合同其他条款的的收益或者损失相形成对价。仲裁条款上当事人的最优方案的损失应该是在主合同上的到补偿的。当事人对仲裁条款的意思表示是建立在主合同的基础上的，比如当事人会在主合同上面获得更优的利益，即着两个意思表示是一体的，相互建立在对方的基础上的。这样双方就主合同、仲裁条款承担对应的、平衡的权利义务。而仅仲裁条款方面，双方的权利义务并不平衡，体现对一方更为有利，但不利的一方会在主合同中获得了在仲裁条款上不利的相应补偿，如价格上体现了比正常价格更有利。现在考虑即使在法律的指引下，法律能否割舍当事人在主合同意思表示上与在仲裁条款意思表示上的联系呢？答案是否定的，人们只可能用最大的精力去在仲裁条款约定上进行博弈，使之在仲裁条款上利益的最大化，但是始终不可能是对自己的最优方案。当事人为实现主合同的期待利益而不得不接受仲裁条款对争议解决的折中方案。由上可以看出，合同当事人在合同项下包括仲裁条款约定的时候，主合同与仲裁条款不是独立分开的意思表示。在主合同项下与仲裁条款利益平衡的基础上，所有合同项下利益包括仲裁条款利益在当事人之间形成了对价。（二） 仲裁的优点并不意味着仲裁是当事人的最优选择有人观点认为：“从国际经济贸易惯例及仲裁制度本身的优点来看，我们可以推断国际商事仲裁的当事人一般都会选择仲裁作为他们合同纠纷及与合同有关的纠纷的解决方式，从而，我们可以推断欺诈合同中被欺诈人对于仲裁的意思是真实的，而欺诈方的意思表示是否真实只要符合表示主义要求即可，即只要欺诈方表示出了仲裁的意思，就认为他的意思表示是真实有效的。”作者认为以仲裁的优点就当然的推断仲裁是被欺诈当事人认为对自己最有利的解决方式的结论是武断的。以国际经济贸易惯例及仲裁制度本身的优点来推断国际商事仲裁的当事人一般都会选择仲裁作为他们合同纠纷及与合同有关的纠纷的解决方式是不恰当的，对纠纷解决方式的选择的问题上，应当从不同当事人的角度来看，不应当仅仅把某种纠纷解决方式一方面的优点就定论为此种方式就优于其他纠纷的解决方式。不同情况下的当事人对不同的纠纷解决方式有自己的判断，相应的有自己认为最适合自己的，对自己最为有利的纠纷解决方式。从不同的角度看何种纠纷解决方式最优会有不同的结论，关键在于我们需要什么样的角度。从保护被欺诈人的角度，当然要从被欺诈人角度考虑认为其最为有利的方式，这就有可能是诉讼而不是仲裁了。比如，中技公司一案中，为什么中方当事人在有仲裁条款的前提下没有向仲裁机构提出仲裁申请，而乐意向法院起诉？至于具体原因是什么作者不得而知。

（三） 仲裁条款上的缔约过失所谓缔约过失责任，是指在合同订立过程中，一方因违背其依据诚实信用原则所应负的义务，而致另一方的信赖利益的损失，并应承担民事责任。我们说信赖利益就是因信赖无效的法律行为为有效而所受的损失。仲裁条款的缔结是基于对主合同的信赖，因为如果不是基于此信赖，以及在主合同项下的利益，当事人不会接受对自己不是最优的争议解决方式、程序。仲裁条款的信赖利益表现在由于仲裁条款对争议解决的方案的规定，在法律对仲裁独立性的确认前提下，使当事人对自己最优方案的丧失。这就是当事人的信赖利益。缔约过失责任的保护就是使当事人回到合同未曾发生时的状态，仲裁条款的缔约过失责任保护应该是使善意当事人没有仲裁条款的约束，当事人可以诉讼，可以仲裁。同时签订的仲裁条款对善意当事人也应该是有信赖利益的，如果善意当事人在签订合同包括仲裁条款的时候就知道会与对方发生争议，争议的原因是对方欺诈而引起的合同无效或被撤消的话，很难想象当事人明知被欺诈还和对方签订仲裁条款，如果当事人认为另外一种争议的解决方式,如诉讼对自己更为有利的话。（四） 支持仲裁与当事人的保护从仲裁条款独立性原则产生的背景可看到，独立性理论的产生与二战后各国对国际商事仲裁实行的自由政策密切相关，认为仲裁能更广泛的用于解决国际商事争议，而此前，各国对仲裁限制较严，法律不允许当事人将更多特定的争议提交仲裁，合同无效、失效或不存在的问题就是其中之一。这是独立性理论产生的历史背景。自从1958年《纽约公约》生效以来，支持仲裁的理念逐步在国际上得到公认。仲裁协议的独立性的实质是支持仲裁，因为仲裁协议是仲裁的基石，其重要性不言而喻。但是仲裁条款独立性的发展并不是从当事人的利益保护角度出发的。立法与实践对仲裁条款独立性的不断确认只不过将案件的管辖权从法院转移到仲裁机构，当事人利益的保护并没有从中获得发展。诉讼和仲裁二者本身只不过是解决社会冲突的不同方式而已，两种方式对当事人来讲，当然都有其优缺点，只能说那种方式在某方面会更优于另外一种方式。有报道指出，近年外商利用涉外仲裁行骗的案件呈上升趋势，但并未引起我国企业的足够重视。在分析原因时认为，我们企业在涉外贸易中，法律意识谈薄，对涉外仲裁机构的公正性及国际仲裁规则不了解，往往只认订单，在仲裁所在地选择上抱无所谓态度。一些外商利用我国企业的“崇洋”心态，或利用我国一些企业缺少相关经验，在商业贸易中，将我国企业轻而易举地推入其设置的国外仲裁“陷阱”。如果这些“陷阱”的同时在合同中欺诈我方当事人，以至于因为仲裁条款的独立性无从保护我方当事人，那么我们就需要慎重考虑法律对仲裁条款独立性的态度。有关方面的不完全统计表明，我国每年在这方面的损失高达100亿元人民币以上。从上面我们就可看出仲裁并不一定就是当事人乐意的争议解决方式，相对于其他国家而言，我们国家是一个仲裁“落后”国家，无论是在仲裁机构运作上，还是在普通民众对仲裁的理解和应用上都是比较“落后”的。我们的法律不能忽视本国当事人的利益，片面的与国际“接轨”。（五） 仲裁条款独立不利于交易的促进仲裁条款的独立性对当事人的指引有二，一是指引对方当事人可能存在恶意，二是如不谨慎，当事人要承担不利后果，法律不对之保护。这会使当事人有对交易环境的担忧，这种担忧会阻止当事人交易的愿望；另外，对仲裁条款独立性原则的确认，是将仲裁条款与合同其他条款视为两个合意即仲裁合意和实体合意的理论发展结果，是根据意思自治原则对当事人真实意思的尊重。这样区分两个合意意味着两个方面的分开合意，当事人不能就两个方面仲裁和实体两个项目间横向达成合意，那么在合同及仲裁条款的过程中，当事人要分别对两个方面进行博弈，不能受另一方面的影响，事实上当事人在考虑实体合意的时候也不可能不考虑仲裁合意的。所以，法律将两个方面人为地割裂开来，势必影响交易的达成。

综上，在欺诈导致主合同无效时，因为主合同与仲裁条款的密切联系，所以对仲裁条款的处置即有效无效问题要考虑被欺诈方的意思，因缔约过失责任存在使当事人回到合同未曾发生时的状态，当然这种选择权在被欺诈方，由其行使，当然他可以选择不回到合同未曾发生时的状态。这种权利的目的是在于保护善意方即被欺诈人的利益,即体现为涉外合同欺诈中仲裁条款独立性受到被欺诈方意思制约。

In the 1988 case of China National Technology Import and Export Corporation v. Swiss Industrial Resources Corporation, and in the 1997 case of Jiangsu Material Group Light Industry and Textile Corporation v. (Hong Kong) Yuyi Group Co., Ltd. and (Canada) Taizi Development Co., Ltd., as well as in the January April 1997 case of Sichuan Eurasian Economic and Trade Corporation v. South Korea Xinhu Trading Company, the Shanghai High People's Court presented three typical cases, It can be seen that there has been a significant shift in judicial practice in China regarding the independence of arbitration clauses in cases of main contract fraud or letter of credit fraud (such as Sichuan Eurasian Economic and Trade Corporation v. South Korea's Xinhu Trading Company). This issue is of great significance both in theory and practice. As the cornerstone of the arbitration system, the arbitration agreement is not only a manifestation of the willingness of both parties to submit a dispute to arbitration, but also the basis for the arbitration institution to arbitrate the dispute. Therefore, this article examines the independence of arbitration clauses from the perspective of contract fraud, analyzes the theoretical and practical foundations of the independence of arbitration clauses, and discusses the independence of arbitration clauses in the case of contract fraud from different perspectives. 

（1） From the perspective of contract consideration, the relationship between arbitration clauses and the main contract is understood in English and American law to be that consideration refers to the price paid by the parties in order to obtain contractual benefits. According to the provisions of English, American and French law, a contract is legally valid only when there is consideration or consideration, and a contract without consideration or consideration is not legally protected. The signing of arbitration clauses, which refers to the dispute resolution methods, procedures, etc. in the arbitration agreement after the parties negotiate with each other, is generally not the best solution that the parties consider to be the best solution to resolve the dispute, because the solution of the arbitration agreement is the result of the best solution that the parties consider to be a compromise. Why do the parties abandon the solution they believe is the best to resolve the dispute and accept a compromise solution, namely the arbitration agreement? The author believes that the reason lies in the relationship between the arbitration clause and the main contract, that is, the parties rely on the principle of good faith to act on the contract parties, and in the contract terms, the losses or gains on the arbitration clause form a consideration with the gains or losses on other clauses of the main contract. The optimal solution for the parties in the arbitration clause should be compensation in the main contract. The expression of intention by the parties to the arbitration clause is based on the main contract, for example, the parties will obtain better benefits in the main contract, that is, the two expressions of intention are integrated and built on the basis of the other party. In this way, both parties shall assume corresponding and balanced rights and obligations under the main contract and arbitration clause. In terms of the arbitration clause alone, the rights and obligations of both parties are not balanced, which is more advantageous for one party. However, the unfavorable party will receive corresponding compensation in the main contract for the unfavorable arbitration clause, such as reflecting a more favorable price than the normal price. Now, even under the guidance of the law, can the law sever the connection between the parties' expression of intention in the main contract and the expression of intention in the arbitration clause? The answer is negative, people can only use their maximum energy to play games on the arbitration clause agreement, in order to maximize their interests in the arbitration clause, but it can never be the best solution for themselves. The parties have to accept the arbitration clause as a compromise solution for dispute resolution in order to achieve the expected benefits of the main contract. From the above, it can be seen that when the parties to the contract include the arbitration clause under the contract, the main contract and the arbitration clause are not independent expressions of intention. On the basis of balancing the interests under the main contract and the arbitration clause, all interests under the contract, including the interests of the arbitration clause, form a consideration between the parties.

(2) The advantages of arbitration do not necessarily mean that arbitration is the best choice for the parties. Some argue that: From the perspective of international economic and trade practices and the advantages of the arbitration system itself, we can infer that the parties to international commercial arbitration generally choose arbitration as their solution to contract disputes and disputes related to the contract. Therefore, we can infer that the fraudulent party's intention to arbitration in a fraudulent contract is true, and whether the fraudulent party's expression of intention is true only needs to meet the requirements of expressionism, that is, as long as the fraudulent party expresses its intention If the intention of arbitration is shown, it is considered that his expression of intention is true and valid The author believes that it is arbitrary to infer that arbitration is the most advantageous solution for the fraudulent parties based on the advantages of arbitration. It is inappropriate to infer from the advantages of international economic and trade practices and arbitration systems that the parties to international commercial arbitration generally choose arbitration as their solution to contract disputes and related disputes. When it comes to the choice of dispute resolution, it should be viewed from the perspectives of different parties, It should not be concluded that one aspect of the advantages of a certain dispute resolution method is superior to other dispute resolution methods. The parties involved in different situations have their own judgments on different dispute resolution methods, and accordingly have their own opinions on the most suitable and beneficial dispute resolution method. There are different conclusions about which dispute resolution method is optimal from different perspectives, and the key lies in what kind of perspective we need. From the perspective of protecting the victim of fraud, it is necessary to consider the most advantageous way from the victim's perspective, which may be litigation rather than arbitration. For example, in the case of China National Chemical Corporation, why did the Chinese party not submit an arbitration application to the arbitration institution under the premise of having an arbitration clause, and instead expressed interest in suing the court? The specific reason is unknown to the author.

（3） The contractual fault liability in arbitration clauses refers to the loss of the other party's trust interests caused by one party's breach of its obligations based on the principle of good faith during the contract formation process, and the party should bear civil liability. We say that the benefit of trust is the loss suffered due to the validity of a legal act that is deemed invalid by trust. The conclusion of arbitration clauses is based on trust in the main contract, because if it is not based on this trust and the interests under the main contract, the parties will not accept the dispute resolution method or procedure that is not optimal for themselves. The trust interest of arbitration clauses is reflected in the provision of dispute resolution solutions in arbitration clauses, which, under the premise of legal confirmation of arbitration independence, causes the parties to lose their optimal solution. This is the trust interest of the parties involved. The protection of contractual liability for breach of contract is to bring the parties back to the state in which the contract did not occur. The protection of contractual liability for breach of contract in arbitration clauses should be such that the parties in good faith are not bound by the arbitration clause, and can sue or arbitrate. The arbitration clause signed at the same time should also have a trust interest for the good faith parties. If the good faith parties knew at the time of signing the contract, including the arbitration clause, that there would be a dispute with the other party, and the reason for the dispute was the invalidity or revocation of the contract caused by the other party's fraud, it is difficult to imagine that the parties knowingly signed the arbitration clause with the other party. If the parties believe that there is another way to resolve the dispute, If litigation is more advantageous to oneself. （4） From the background of the principle of independence in arbitration clauses, it can be seen that the emergence of independence theory is closely related to the freedom policies implemented by various countries in international commercial arbitration after World War II. It is believed that arbitration can be more widely used to resolve international commercial disputes. Prior to this, countries had stricter restrictions on arbitration, and the law did not allow parties to submit more specific disputes to arbitration, resulting in invalid contracts One of them is the problem of failure or non-existent. This is the historical background of the emergence of independence theory. Since the entry into force of the New York Convention in 1958, the concept of supporting arbitration has gradually been recognized internationally. The essence of the independence of arbitration agreements is to support arbitration, as arbitration agreements are the cornerstone of arbitration and their importance is self-evident. However, the development of the independence of arbitration clauses is not based on the protection of the interests of the parties involved. The continuous confirmation of the independence of arbitration clauses by legislation and practice only transfers the jurisdiction of the case from the court to the arbitration institution, and the protection of the interests of the parties has not been developed from it. Litigation and arbitration themselves are just different ways to resolve social conflicts. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages for the parties involved, and it can only be said that one method is better than the other in some aspects. Reports have pointed out that in recent years, there has been an increasing trend in cases of foreign investors using foreign-related arbitration to commit fraud, but it has not received sufficient attention from Chinese enterprises. When analyzing the reasons, it is believed that our company has a weak legal awareness in foreign-related trade and is not familiar with the fairness of foreign-related arbitration institutions and international arbitration rules. Often, we only accept orders and have a indifferent attitude towards the choice of arbitration location. Some foreign businesses take advantage of the "foreign worship" mentality of Chinese enterprises, or take advantage of the lack of relevant experience in some Chinese enterprises, and easily push Chinese enterprises into the foreign arbitration "trap" they have set up in commercial trade. If these "traps" deceive our parties in the contract at the same time, so that the independence of the arbitration clause cannot protect our parties, then we need to carefully consider the legal attitude towards the independence of the arbitration clause. Incomplete statistics from relevant sources indicate that China's annual losses in this area amount to over 10 billion yuan. From the above, we can see that arbitration is not necessarily the preferred dispute resolution method for the parties. Compared to other countries, our country is an arbitration "backward" country, both in the operation of arbitration institutions and in the understanding and application of arbitration by the general public. Our law cannot ignore the interests of domestic parties and unilaterally align with international standards. （5） The independence of arbitration clauses is not conducive to the promotion of transactions. The independence of arbitration clauses provides guidance to the parties in two ways: firstly, it guides the other party that there may be malicious intent; secondly, if not careful, the parties will bear adverse consequences, which are not protected by law. This will make the parties concerned about the trading environment, which will hinder their desire to trade; In addition, the recognition of the principle of independence in arbitration clauses is the theoretical development result of treating arbitration clauses and other contractual clauses as two consensual agreements, namely arbitration agreement and substantive agreement, based on the principle of autonomy of will, respecting the true intentions of the parties. Distinguishing two agreements in this way means the separation of two aspects of agreement. The parties cannot reach a horizontal agreement between the two aspects of arbitration and the entity. Therefore, in the process of the contract and arbitration clause, the parties need to play games on both aspects separately and cannot be influenced by the other side. In fact, when considering the entity's agreement, the parties cannot ignore the arbitration agreement. So, if the law artificially separates the two aspects, it will inevitably affect the achievement of transactions.

In summary, when fraud leads to the invalidity of the main contract, due to the close connection between the main contract and the arbitration clause, the disposal of the arbitration clause, namely the issue of validity and invalidity, should consider the intention of the fraudster. The existence of contractual fault liability causes the parties to return to the state when the contract did not occur. Of course, this right of choice is exercised by the fraudster, and he can choose not to return to the state when the contract did not occur. The purpose of this right is to protect the interests of the good faith party, namely the fraudster, which is reflected in the fact that the independence of the arbitration clause in foreign-related contract fraud is constrained by the fraudster's intention.