“起初，仲裁作为解决纠纷的一种方法很简单，两名商人对交付商品的价格或质量产生争议，将会向他们认识并信任的第三方寻求决定。”（Redfern & Hunter 2014 at 1-03）

在过去的几十年里，随着商业交易变得越来越复杂和全球化，仲裁与这幅美好的前景相去甚远。这一趋势不断导致更长，更复杂和资源密集（resource-intensive）的程序，导致一些用户抱怨仲裁过度依赖律师（over-lawyered），过于复杂，既不快速也不比国家法院的诉讼效率更高。

快速仲裁与这一趋势形成鲜明对比；可以说，它仍然与Redfern & Hunterr对仲裁起源的描述有些相似之处。在快速程序中，争议由独任仲裁员进行审理，并且与传统的仲裁相比，允许双方有限提交文件，提交时间也更短。

2017年，斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院（SCC）在经过两年的审议后发布了修订的快速仲裁规则（“Expedited Rules”），并将用户反馈意见和机构自身的经验考虑进去。修订过程旨在更新“快速规则”并为用户提供更加简化，高效且具有成本效益（cost-effective）的争议解决程序。修订规则生效一年后，总结如下。

提交案件材料前置（Front-loading the case）

2017年快速规则的一个重大变化是，仲裁请求也构成仲裁申请（the Statement of Claim），而被申请人的答复也构成了答辩意见（ the Statement of Defence）（第6和第9条）。案件的“前置”旨仲裁员收到案卷时双方已经提交主要意见，以节省时间。规则没有规定被申请人答辩时间限制，但SCC通常会在送达被申请人规定四周的答辩时间。尽管一些观察者担心这种“前置”会在用户和律师之间造成混淆，但新程序受到了当事人和仲裁员的欢迎，并且在实践中运作良好。

书面意见有限递交，时限更短 （Limited submissions, short time frames）

“2017年快速规则”规定，除仲裁请求和答辩书外（第30条），各方当事人可以提交一份补充书面意见。当然，如果情况令人信服，仲裁员可以要求当事人提交额外的意见。规则还规定提交的意见应该简短扼要，重要的是，提交书面意见的时限不得超过15个工作日；当然必要时仲裁员可以延长。本着快速原则，规则还要求在移交给仲裁员案卷后立即举行案件管理会议，并在7天内制定时间表。在SCC的经验中，仲裁员，当事人和律师通常接受并遵守这些截止日期。

不开庭审理（No hearings）

作为一项主要规则，快速仲裁应以书面形式进行，但实践中通常会举行简短的开庭审理。在2017年“仲裁规则”中，修改了有关开庭审理的规定，因此只有当事人提出要求并且仲裁员认为存在特殊理由时才开庭审理（第33条）。到目前为止，根据2017年快速规则启动的案件中约有三分之一案件进行了开庭审理。不开庭审理通常有助于加快解决纠纷。2017年，根据快速仲裁规则，54％的裁决是在案卷移交后的3个月内作出，另外的38％在6个月内作出。

仲裁员的授权（The arbitrator’s mandate）

在修订“快速规则”之前，一些仲裁员抱怨道，当事人对仲裁程序的期望有悖规则。这促使修改后的规则发生了一些变化；值得注意的是，仲裁员被授予更大的权限来限制程序，并拒绝当事人进一步提交或更长时间开庭审理的请求。现在，即使在当事人无法就程序框架达成一致的情况下，“快速仲裁规则”也支持仲裁员有效处理纠纷。关于仲裁行为的条款现在更强调效率和快速，并指示仲裁员“在任何时候都要考虑仲裁程序的快速性”（第24条）。

规则更新（Rules upgrade）

快速规则只适用于双方协商一致的情况。最常见的情况是在仲裁协议中作出规定，但也可以发生在双方纠纷产生后同意适用快速程序的情况。2017年快速规则中引入了新条款，即SCC可以邀请当事人“更新”传统仲裁规则（第11条）。在评估争议是否适合快速仲裁时，不一定取决于双方当事人索赔金额；主要问题是，如果争议的复杂性和性质允许通过有限的书面交流来决定，并且没有大量的口头证据。

2017年SCC注册的200个新仲裁案件中，有72起适用快速案件。相比前几年，有了显着增加；通常约占SCC四分之一案件依据快速规则。 2016年，总共有199起快速仲裁案件。

SCC管理的大多数快速仲裁涉及瑞典或欧盟内部中小型公司之间的商事协议。 这些纠纷通常产生于相对有限并直接的商业交易，这种交易不需要全面的仲裁（full-fledged arbitration），或者交易的价值使传统的仲裁成本效率低下。通过快速仲裁程序，双方能够迅速公正地解决争端，让他们重新开始工作。有时候，双方的商业关系甚至可以在短暂的仲裁之后继续维持。

在同意根据“快速规则”进行仲裁的情况下，仲裁当事人意识到程序限制；从某种意义上说，他们同意以Redfern & Hunter在仲裁历史回顾中同样的商人精神来解决他们的纠纷。也许这种程序上的简化导致快速仲裁，成为越来越有吸引力的争议解决方法的原因。

 【英文原文】

Expedited Arbitration at the SCC: One Year with the 2017 Rules

Anja Havedal Ipp (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce)

“In its origins, the concept of arbitration as a method of resolving disputes was a simple one . . . . Two traders, in dispute over the price or quality of goods delivered, would turn to a third whom they knew and trusted for his decision.” (Redfern & Hunter 2014 at 1-03)

Arbitration has strayed quite far from this rosy picture, as business transactions have grown ever more complex and globalized over the past several decades. The trend has consistently led toward longer, more complex and resource-intensive proceedings, causing some users to complain of arbitrations that are over-lawyered and overly sophisticated and neither quicker nor more efficient than proceedings in national courts.

Expedited arbitration stands in contrast to this trend; arguably, it still bears some resemblance to Redfern & Hunter’s portrayal of arbitration’s origins. In an expedited proceeding, the dispute is heard by a sole arbitrator, and the parties are allowed a limited number of submissions and shorter time frames than in a typical arbitration.

In 2017, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) launched revised Rules for Expedited Arbitration (“Expedited Rules”), following a two-year review that took into account user feedback and the Institute’s own experience. The revision process sought to update the Expedited Rules and offer users an even more streamlined, efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution process. One year after the revised rules entered into force, the following observations can be made.

One significant change in the 2017 Expedited Rules was that the Request for Arbitration also constitutes the Statement of Claim, and that the respondent’s Answer also constitutes the Statement of Defence (Art 6 & 9). This “front-loading” of the case aims to save time by having the main submissions in place when the arbitrator receives the case file. The rules do not stipulate a time limit for the respondent’s Answer, but the SCC typically gives four weeks from when the respondent is served. Although some observers were nervous that this “front-loading” would create confusion among users and counsel, the new procedure has been welcomed by parties and arbitrators alike and has worked well in practice.

The 2017 Expedited Rules stipulate that each party may make one supplementary written submission in addition to the Request for Arbitration and the Answer (Art 30). The arbitrator may, of course, request the parties to make additional submissions if the circumstances are compelling. The rules also specify that submissions should be brief and, importantly, that the timeframe for submission must not exceed 15 working days; this time may of course be extended by the arbitrator when necessary. In the spirit of expediency, the rules also require that a case management conference be held promptly after referral, and that a timetable be set within seven days. In the SCC’s experience, arbitrators, parties and counsel generally accept and comply with these deadlines.

As a main rule, an expedited arbitration should be in writing, but in practice a brief hearing is often held. In the 2017 Rules, the provision relating to hearings was revised so that a hearing is to be held only if a party so requests and if the arbitrator considers that special reasons exist (Art 33). So far, a hearing has been held in about one-third of the cases initiated under the 2017 Expedited Rules. The absence of a hearing typically contributes to a quicker resolution of the dispute. In 2017, 54 percent of awards under the expedited rules were rendered within 3 months of referral, and another 38 percent within 6 months.

Prior to the revision of the Expedited Rules, some arbitrators complained that the parties’ expectations of the arbitral proceedings did not match the framework of the rules. This motivated several changes in the revised rules; notably, the arbitrator was given a greater mandate to limit the proceedings and reject parties’ requests for further submissions or longer hearings. The Expedited Rules now support the arbitrator’s efficient handling of the dispute even in situations where the parties cannot agree on the procedural framework. The article regarding the conduct of the arbitration now places greater emphasis on efficiency and expediency, and instructs the arbitrator to “consider at all times the expedited nature of the proceedings” (Art 24).

The Expedited Rules apply only where the parties have so agreed. Most commonly, this is by stipulation in the arbitration agreement, but it also happens that the parties agree on the expedited procedure after a dispute has arisen. A new provision was introduced in the 2017 Expedited Rules whereby the SCC may invite the parties to “upgrade” to the regular Arbitration Rules (Art 11). In assessing whether a dispute is suited for expedited arbitration, it is not necessarily the value of the parties’ claims that is determinative; the question is rather if the complexity and the nature of the dispute allows for it to be decided through a limited written exchange and without extensive oral evidence.

Of the 200 new arbitrations registered by the SCC in 2017, 72 were expedited cases. This was a significant increase over previous years; typically around one-fourth of the total SCC caseload have been disputes under the Expedited Rules. In 2016, there were 55 expedited arbitrations out of 199 total.

Most of the expedited arbitrations administered by the SCC are related to commercial agreements between small and medium-sized companies in Sweden, or within the EU. These disputes often arise out of relatively limited, straightforward business transactions where there is no need for full-fledged arbitration, or where the value of the transaction makes regular arbitration cost-inefficient. Through the expedited arbitral proceeding, the parties receive a quick and just resolution to their dispute, allowing them to get back to business. Sometimes, the parties’ business relationship even survive the brief arbitral process.

In agreeing to arbitrate under the Expedited Rules, arbitration users are aware of the limited scope of the procedure; in a sense, they are agreeing to resolve their disputes in the same spirit as the merchants in Redfern & Hunter’s historical retrospect on arbitration. Perhaps this procedural simplicity is precisely what has made expedited arbitration an increasingly attractive dispute resolution method.