专家是伦敦国际仲裁院一大特色

1. 伦敦国际仲裁院(LCIA) 每年300多仲裁案件，绝大多数案件均会聘请专家。这些专家在仲裁程序中起到了不可或缺的作用。

2. LCIA管理的仲裁案件涉及的领域广，包括金融、航运等领域。尽管大多数案件的准据法为英国法，并且仲裁地为伦敦，但是涉及的绝大多数当事人均为非英国的国际化公司，如图所示。

3. 这些当事人因LCIA高质量解决争议的声誉，常常乐于选择适用英国法律，仲裁地为伦敦、仲裁机构为LCIA。LCIA赢得声誉的法宝即为拥有无与伦比的专家队伍。

 专家以多种方式参与仲裁 

4.  鉴于LCIA当事人以及争议事项的多样性，专家的聘请因案而异。

5. 专家们提供农业、生物技术、工程以及经济学和会计学等众多领域的专门知识。

6. 即便不说涉及到的领域科目之繁多，专家的聘请方式也多种多样。专家为一方当事人起草专家报告并参加听证会的传统作用已经有所发展，以提高裁决的质量和效率。这些方法在为专家、当事人和仲裁员提供机会之时，却并不一定均能最佳地实现专家的参与目的。

7. 下面列举了当今专家参与仲裁的主要方式以及面临的挑战。

提供幕后意见

8. 探究并形成一项仲裁请求或对请求的抗辩，往往需要大量的技术或专业知识，这已超出了律师的能力范围。为此，经常需要专参与仲裁程序提供帮助。

9. 这些专家有时被通俗地称为“影子”或“肮脏”专家，因为他们本质上是当事人的延伸，与那些职责是为仲裁庭提供公正的专家证据的“干净”专家完全不同。但是，这个略带贬义的词掩盖了该等专家在案件开始时就发挥的不可估量的作用。幕后专家保证了在仲裁请求中或抗辩中的技术性细节不被混淆或歪曲，并可在一开始就防止那些不被支持的或未成熟的请求被提交。该等专家还常常有助于为最终向仲裁庭提供证据的专家设定参与标准。

10. 仲裁中的其他参与者很少能知道幕后提供建议的专家。因此，重要的是，当这些专家履行其他职责时，特别是当他们担任仲裁员时（如下文所述），他们还会记得因过去提出任何幕后建议所产生的潜在冲突问题。

当事人指定的专家

11. 当事人指定专家是国际仲裁中最常见的专家形式。当事人指定的专家负责向仲裁庭提供的专家证据通常是在开庭前以专家报告的形式提供，然后在听证会上作证。

12. 普通法方法，各方当事人指定的专家独立地出具专家报告的方法，面临一个重大问题：就像夜里航行之船，在回答同样的问题时，专家可能从根本上就采取了不相容的方法，或更糟的是，对问题的本身就无法达成一致意见。举例来说，可能一个专家使用财务定价方法，而另一个则使用经济定价。

13. 为了弥合不同专家提供的报告之间的差距，英国法院和一些国际仲裁庭要求专家合作，可以是通过庭前会议查明并减少争议要点分歧的方式，或者甚至可以是通过向仲裁庭提交联合报告的方式。然而，要求专家起草联合报告并不会并且一点也不能解决根本性的不相容问题，特别是代理律师指示的情况下更难解决这一问题。

14. 即使是运用证人会议的技术（或称更为人知的“泡汤浴”）也不一定能解决这些根本差异。泡汤浴（ “hot-tubbing”）是指仲裁庭就专家证据同时向多个专家发问。理论上，泡汤浴可以让仲裁庭确切查明各专家在方法、假设和结论方面的差异性。这些反过来也应允许仲裁庭在专家的帮助下尝试调解或至少是理解这些分歧。但是，泡汤浴还是取决于仲裁庭是否足够了解潜在问题，以批判性地与专家进行探讨，这些是泡汤浴根本无法保证。

仲裁庭指定专家

15. 获得专家证据另一种方式是由仲裁庭自行指定专家，这种方式在弥合各不兼容问题上比较有效。这种方式可以代替当事人指定专家，或与当事人指定专家同时进行。

16. 这种由大陆法系法院或法庭指定专家的传统方式已纳入到LCIA的专家指定体系：LCIA仲裁规则第21条明文规定仲裁庭指定专家的规则。仲裁庭通过指定专家可以确保获得真正无偏袒性的公正观点。但是，它确实也要求仲裁庭对案件和问题进行充分性的细节分析，以便能够确定所需专家的背景要求。

17.在当事人也指定专家的情况下，仲裁庭指定的专家可以指引仲裁庭调和不同专家意见之间的差异，以便仲裁庭能够采取坚定的立场，并确保最终裁决关于技术性问题的公正性。

专家决定及分项条款

18. 虽然经常谈及仲裁中专家决定（Expert determination），但专家决定根本不是仲裁，而是一种与仲裁完全不同的争议解决方式。专家决定纯粹是契约型争议解决方式，主要由专家对争议作出决定，而不是由仲裁员对争议做出决定，该结果不能像仲裁裁决一样可根据国内和国际规定予以执行。

19. 通常会在争议的问题（被认为）属于技术性问题而非法律问题的情况下使用专家决定，例如股权购买协议结账（closing accounts）问题。

20. 分项条款（split clause）适用某种争议解决方式解决协议发生的某些纠纷，其他类型的纠纷由其他争议解决方式解决，如专家决定。分项条款通常视为较之于将所有争议均提交仲裁或诉讼解决更有效的争议解决方式。

21. 这些条款是否有效很大程度上取决于争议类型。如果（当前的）争议是法律问题而不是技术问题，专家决定不是最佳的争议解决机制。举例来说，如结账时无法达成一致并非因各方对适用会计准则存在不同意见，而是对适用哪些准则持有不同意见时。

22. 分项条款的复杂性需要明确区分两类争议，需要仔细起草分项条款，以确保划分出需要由专家决定来解决的特定争议。特别重要的是，对划分的分项条款的范围或效力产生争议时以及发生条款各要件优先次序争议时，要确保一方可以获得救济或确保避免产生相互冲突的救济方式。

专家作为仲裁庭的成员

23. 仲裁庭指定专家的一个自然延伸是选定该专家作为仲裁庭的成员。有专家作为仲裁员的仲裁庭可克服一个潜在的局限性，即过分依赖于其指定专家的仲裁庭可能会被认为已将其作出裁决的根本性责任授权给了该专家，这可能影响裁决的可执行性。如果该专家是仲裁庭的成员，则不会出现这样的问题。

24. 由专家组成的仲裁庭面临的主要困难是指定适当的专家仲裁员，这要求确定专业领域。当事人往往无法就指定何种专家以及如何指定、由谁指定达成一致意见。对这些问题的争论本身往往会发展成一项迷你仲裁（mini -arbitrations ）。

25. 机构指定专家回避了其中的一些问题，但仍需要就专家背景要求达成一定程度的合意，以便机构组成的仲裁庭能兼备必要法律和技术性知识来对争议做出裁决。

 完善国际仲裁中的专家聘请

26. 如上所述，专家通过多样化方式参与国际仲裁。尽管每种方式都提供了一定的机会和特有的益处，但对最重要的是识别这些方式各自的不足。

27. 除了使用和发展这些现有专家任用方式外，还可以采取许多其他措施来更好地利用国际仲裁中的专家：

a) 律师和仲裁员应提高自己的能力，熟练自如地处理那些经常要求专家解决问题，尤其是对绝大多数案件都涉及的定量问题；

b) 专家自身也必须确保，如被要求进行合作，他们足够灵活这样便于与仲裁庭和其他专家之间进行讨论。

28.随着国际仲裁争议的标的越来越大、案件越来越复杂，越来越多地依赖专家在力所能及的能力范围内提供他们宝贵的专门知识。所有相关专家都应努力确保最大程度地利用他们的专业知识。

Experts in International Arbitration

The various ways in which experts are used in international arbitration present opportunities for more effective and efficient decision-making.

EXPERTS ARE A FIXTURE OF LCIA ARBITRATION

1. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) registers some 300 new arbitrations each year. Most, if not all, involve the use of experts. These experts play an integral role in the arbitration process.

2. Arbitrations administered at the LCIA vary considerably, covering sectors from finance to shipping. While most are decided in accordance with English law and seated in London, the vast majority of parties to LCIA arbitrations are international, as shown in the chart below.

3. These parties are drawn to English law, a London seat, and the LCIA due to their collective reputation for high-quality dispute resolution. This reputation is in part built on the access to an unrivalled pool of experts.

EXPERTS ARE INVOLVED IN ARBITRATION IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

4. As would be expected given the variety of parties and subject matter at the LCIA, experts are used differently from case to case.

5. Experts offer their expertise in a myriad of fields, from agriculture to biotechnology, engineering, and of course economics and accountancy.

6. Even aside from the variety of disciplines represented, experts are used in a variety of ways. The traditional role for experts, in which they draft an expert report for a party and then testify at a hearing, has been joined by a number of different methods to improve the quality and efficiency of decision-making. These methods, while providing opportunities for experts, parties, and arbitrators, do not necessarily result in experts being involved optimally.

7. Set out below are some of the key ways in which experts are involved in arbitration today, along with their associated challenges.

2.1 Advising behind the scenes

8. Exploring and developing a claim or defence to a claim often requires substantial technical or specialist expertise, beyond that which can be provided by counsel. For this reason, experts are often engaged to assist in this process.

9. Such experts are sometimes referred to colloquially as “shadow” or “dirty” experts because they are essentially an extension of the party itself, as opposed to a “clean” expert whose responsibility is to present impartial expert evidence to the tribunal. This somewhat pejorative term, however, belies the invaluable role such experts play at the outset of a case. Behind-the-scenes experts ensure that technical details are not obfuscated or misrepresented in claims and defences, and may prevent an unsupported or immature claim from being submitted in the first place. Such experts also often help to set parameters for the engagement of an expert who will ultimately provide evidence to the tribunal.

10. Experts who advise behind the scenes are rarely visible to other participants in an arbitration. It is therefore important that when these experts perform other roles, in particular when they act as arbitrators (as discussed further below), they bear in mind potential conflict issues arising out of any behind the scenes advice they have given in the past.

2.2 Party-appointed experts

11. Party-appointed experts are the most common form of experts in international arbitration. A party-appointed expert is responsible for providing expert evidence to the tribunal, usually in the form of an expert report prior to a hearing, then testimony at a hearing.

12. This traditional common-law approach, by which each of the parties’ experts works in isolation to produce an expert report, risks one of the most significant difficulties in using expert witnesses: like ships passing in the night, experts can take fundamentally incompatible approaches to answering the same question, or worse, disagree on the question itself. An example of this may be where one expert uses accounting pricing and the other uses economic pricing to determine quantum.

13. To bridge the gaps between reports provided by different experts, English courts and some international tribunals ask experts to work together, whether it be by meeting prior to a hearing to identify and narrow down the points on which there is disagreement, or even by producing a joint report for presentation to the tribunal. However, requesting experts to write joint reports will not resolve fundamental incompatibilities, not in the least as these are typically the result of instructions from the lawyers involved in the case.

14. Even the technique of witness conferencing (or “hot-tubbing” as it is more evocatively known) will not necessarily resolve these fundamental differences. Hot-tubbing involves tribunals questioning multiple experts on their evidence simultaneously. In theory, hot-tubbing allows tribunals to identify precisely where experts diverge in approach, assumptions, and conclusions. This should, in turn, allow tribunals to attempt to reconcile or at least understand these differences with the help of the experts themselves. Hot-tubbing, however, depends on tribunals having enough comfort with the underlying issues to probe the experts critically – something which is far from guaranteed.

2.3 Tribunal-appointed experts

15. Another way to obtain expert evidence, one that is potentially more effective when it comes to bridging incompatible approaches, is for the tribunal itself to appoint an expert. This may be done either instead of, or in addition to, the parties appointing experts.

16. This traditionally civil law system of having a court- or tribunal-appointed expert has been embedded in the LCIA system: Article 21 of the LCIA Arbitration Rules expressly provides for tribunal-appointed experts. By appointing an expert itself, a tribunal can ensure that it is receiving a truly non-partisan view of the evidence. It does, however, require the tribunal to have analysed the case and the issues at hand at a sufficient level of detail to be able to determine the profile of the required expert.

17. Where experts are also appointed by the parties, a tribunal-appointed expert is able to guide the tribunal in reconciling any differences between approaches, allowing the tribunal to take a firmer hand and ensuring that the technical elements of a final determination are of a high standard.

2.4 Expert determination and split clauses

18. While expert determination is often spoken about in the context of arbitration, it is not actually arbitration at all, but an entirely different form of dispute resolution. Expert determination is a purely contractual form of dispute resolution. It involves an expert, rather than an arbitrator, deciding a dispute, and the result is not an arbitration award enforceable on the basis of national and international standards.

19. Expert determination is commonly used where the subject matter of a dispute is or is thought to be technical rather than legal, such as determining the closing accounts in the context of a share purchase agreement.

20. A split clause is a clause that refers some disputes arising out of a particular agreement to one method of dispute resolution, such as arbitration or court litigation, and other types of disputes to another method of dispute resolution, such as expert determination. Split clauses are often seen as a more efficient method of dispute resolution than referring all disputes to arbitration or litigation.

21. Whether these clauses are indeed effective very much depends on the types of dispute which arise. Expert determination is not the optimal dispute resolution mechanism if disputes arise in which the (underlying) issues are legal rather than technical. An example is where an inability to agree on closing accounts is not the result of a difference of opinion in the application of accounting standards, but rather a difference of opinion as to which standards apply.

22. These complications are compounded in split clauses, which require a clear delineation between the two categories of disputes. Split clauses require careful drafting to ensure that carving out certain disputes for expert determination works. In particular, it is important to ensure that a party is not left with either no remedy or conflicting remedies where a dispute arises about the scope and effect of the carve-out clause, and the hierarchy of the elements contained therein.

2.5 Experts as tribunal members

23. A natural extension of having a tribunal-appointed expert is to have an expert as a member of the tribunal. Having an expert as a tribunal member overcomes one of the potential limitations of tribunal-appointed experts: a tribunal that relies too heavily on its appointed expert may be said to have delegated its fundamental decision-making responsibility, which could impact the enforceability of any award rendered. If the expert is a member of the tribunal, no such issue arises.

24. The main difficulty with having an expert on a tribunal is actually getting the expert appointed, which requires determining the most appropriate area of expertise. Parties will often disagree on what type of expert to appoint, as well as how and by whom the expert will be appointed. Debates over these issues can often devolve into mini-arbitrations in themselves.

25. Institutional appointment sidesteps some of these issues, but still requires a degree of consensus about the profile of the expert to enable the institution to constitute a balanced tribunal with the necessary legal and technical expertise to decide the dispute.

 IMPROVING THE USE OF EXPERTS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

26. As set out above, there are a considerable variety of ways in which experts become involved in international arbitration. While each method presents opportunities and unique benefits, it is important to recognise their respective shortcomings.

27. Aside from using and developing these methods, there are other steps that can be taken to make better use of experts in international arbitration:

a) lawyers and arbitrators should develop their familiarity and comfort dealing with the issues on which experts are often asked to contribute, particularly quantum, which is significant to the vast majority of cases; and

b) experts themselves must ensure that if asked to co-operate, they are flexible enough to facilitate a discussion with the tribunal and with the other experts.

28. With the increasing size and complexity of international disputes, experts will be called upon more and more to provide their invaluable expertise, and in a wider variety of capacities. All involved should work to ensure that this expertise is utilised to the fullest extent.