ICCA国际仲裁第三方资助(TPF)报告： 第6章 费用及费用担保 (5)

更新时间：2018-08-22 08:13:40  临时仲裁 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：4035次

第6章 费用及费用担保（5）

b. Investment Arbitration 投资仲裁

Investment arbitration raises some unique issues with respect to security for costs.[25]

投资仲裁在费用担保方面提出了一些独特问题。

i. Do states have a protected right to security for costs under ICSID arbitration?在ICSID仲裁下，国家是否享有受保护的请求费用担保的权利？

While the ICSID Convention provides that each party must abide by and comply with the terms of the award,[26] execution of the award is left to the national applicable law.[27] Accordingly, because the ICSID Convention is not concerned with execution or collection of awards, including the collection of a possible costs award, some tribunals and arbitrators have questioned whether a defendant state has a “right” to security for costs which is protected under the ICSID regime. In Maffezini v. Spain for example, the tribunal noted that there was no present right of the respondent state to be preserved.[28] In Grynberg v. Grenada, the dissenting arbitrator stated that “the use of the words ‘preserve’ and ‘preserved’ in [ICSID] Article 47 and Rule 39 presupposes that the right to be preserved exists. Because Respondent has no existing right to an ultimate award of costs, the Tribunal is thus without jurisdiction”.[29]

尽管《ICSID公约》规定，各方必须对仲裁裁决的条款予以遵守，但裁决的执行还是依赖国家适用的法律。因此，因《ICSID公约》不涉及裁决的执行和回收，包括潜在费用裁决的回收，一些仲裁庭和仲裁员提出疑问，即被申请国对于费用担保是否享有在ICSID制度下受保护“权利”。例如在Maffezini v Spain案中，法庭指出被申请国不存在需要维护的现有权利。在Grynberg v Grenada案中，持反对意见的仲裁员表示，“《ICSID公约》第47条和第39条规则使用‘维护’和‘受维护’措辞的前提是存在这种需要维护的权利。因被申请人对于最终的费用裁决无任何现存权利，因此仲裁庭没有管辖权。”

Other ICSID tribunals, such as the tribunal in EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic[30] and the majority decision in Grynberg v. Grenada, accepted that states have a right in a security for costs application, which is protected under the ICSID regime, even if under the circumstances of the case, the requested security for costs was rejected.

其他ICSID仲裁庭，如EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic案的仲裁庭以及Grynberg v Grenada案中的多数裁决，都认为国家在费用担保申请中享有权利，该权利根据ICSID制度受到保护，即使在费用担保请求被驳回的案例中也是如此。

In this regard, the tribunal in the recent, Eskosol S.P.A. in Liquidazione v. Italian Republic,[31] noted that “there is something analytically curious about the notion that an ICSID tribunal, while not empowered to protect a claimant’s ability to collect on a possible merits award, nonetheless should intervene to protect a State’s asserted “right” to collect on a possible costs award”. While the tribunal in the Eskosol case decided not to address this matter as the respondent had failed to demonstrate that the security for costs request was urgent even assuming that the state had a protectable right, it went on to observe that:

就这点而言，仲裁庭在最近的Eskosol S.P.A. in Liquidazione v Italian Republic案中指出，“令人好奇的是，ICSID仲裁庭，尽管未被授权保护申请人能够回收可能有价值的裁决，但它仍然应当进行干预以保护国家所主张的回收潜在费用裁决的‘权利’”。但是仲裁庭在此案中决定不去解决这一问题，因为被申请国未能证明费用担保请求的紧迫性，甚至假定国家拥有一个受保护的权力，仲裁庭继续说道：

“The Tribunal accepts that respondent States have genuine concerns about their ability to enforce an eventual costs award against unsuccessful claimants, and some States are starting to raise the possibility of reforms to the ICSID system to protect themselves more systematically. But at the same time, such States would be unhappy to see a similar argument about a right to effective relief used against them, for example by claimants worried about collection risk associated with any final merits award of compensation.”[32]

“仲裁庭承认，被申请国对于是否能执行对败诉申请人不利的最终费用裁决的担忧是真实的，而且一些国家已经开始提出对ICSID体系的改革，以为自己提供更系统的保护。但与此同时，这些国家将不愿看到关于有效救济权的类似观点，例如，担心（与任何最终赔偿金额有关的）回收风险的申请人可能使用该权利来对付他们。”

Ultimately, this is still an emerging matter, which is included here for the sake of completeness. The Task Force does not wish to take a position on this matter at this stage.

最终，这仍然是一个新兴问题，在此提及是为了报告的完整性。工作组不希望在这个阶段对该问题采取任何立场。

ii. Relevant considerations有关考虑

The issue of whether security for costs applications should be granted against investors is predicated on larger policy debates about the legitimacy of investment arbitration more generally, and the role of third-party funding in that debate. A detailed discussion of this larger debate in investment arbitration, including underpinning policy considerations, is provided in Chapter 8. As already mentioned, the primary aim of this Chapter is to state the current position of the law, as this emerges from analysis of the relevant investor-state cases, and capture the more technical considerations in relation to security for costs applications.

是否应向投资者授予费用担保的问题，是基于对投资仲裁合法性的更广泛的政策辩论以及第三方资助在该辩论中的作用。第8章详细讨论了投资仲裁中的这一广泛争论，包括支持政策的考虑因素。如前所述，本章主要目的在于陈述法律的当前立场，该立场从对投资者与国家相关案件的分析得出，并包括与费用申请担保有关的更多技术考虑。

From a review of a growing number of cases dealing with this matter, it appears that tribunals in ICSID arbitration tend to adopt a stricter test than the claimant’s impecuniosity to order security for costs: they usually require evidence of abusive conduct or bad faith on the part of the claimant,[33] such as evidence that the claimant has a track record of deliberately failing to comply with costs awards.

对更多处理该问题的案件进行审查可知，显然ICSID仲裁庭倾向于采用更严格（相较于申请人资金短缺标准）的检验标准来决定是否下达费用担保指令：他们通常要求提供有关申请人存在恶意行为或不守信用的证据，例如关于申请人曾有过故意不遵从费用裁决的记录。

While this appears to be an increasingly accepted test for investment arbitration tribunals, it is questionable whether such a high threshold is warranted. It can reasonably be argued that, if the respondent state was subject to an unsuccessful claim, it should be able to recover costs at the end of the arbitration regardless of whether the claimant is acting in bad faith or not.

虽然这种检验标准在投资仲裁庭越来越受认可，这种高标准是否有根据仍存在疑问。可以合理地认为，如果被申请国受一个失败索赔的约束，那么它应当能在仲裁结束时补偿费用，无论申请人是否存在失信行为。

On the other hand, an investor may claim that it would be unreasonable for a tribunal to order an investor to meet a security for costs order, because the state’s unlawful conduct (assuming that the state’s conduct in question is indeed unlawful) has diminished or even expropriated their investment in the first place, and has left the investor with limited or no available funds to conduct a usually costly investor-state arbitration. This can be a powerful argument, not least because it raises, from the investors’ perspective, issues of access to justice.[34]

另一方面，投资者可能主张仲裁庭对其下达费用担保命令不合理，因为国家的非法行为（假定国家的行为确实违法）首先已经减少甚至剥夺其投资，只留给投资者有限的或无法动用的资金来进行通常昂贵的仲裁（投资者与国家之间的仲裁）。这是一个有力的主张，尤其从投资者的角度来看，它引发了寻求正义的问题。

In practice however, when investor-state tribunals decide security for costs requests, usually at an early stage of the arbitration process, they tend not to presume that the state’s conduct has actually left an investor with limited available funds to avoid prejudging the merits of the dispute and thus violating fundamental principles of procedural fairness.

然而在实践中，对于投资者与国家之间的仲裁，当仲裁庭决定对费用担保请求进行审查时（通常在仲裁程序的早期），往往不会假定国家的行为确实使得投资者只剩下有限的可用资金，以避免因对争议是非曲直的预判而违反程序公正的基本原则。

This explains why investment tribunals tend to focus on other considerations, which are not directly related to the merits of the dispute, but nevertheless set a high threshold for a claimant to be subject to a security for costs order in investment arbitration, including for example the requirement that the claimant has exhibited abusive conduct by repeatedly failing to comply with costs orders or deliberately dissipating its assets.

这解释了为何投资法庭倾向于关注其他的考虑因素，这些考虑因素与争议的是非曲直无直接关联，但仍然为将在投资仲裁中受费用担保指令约束的申请人设置了较高标准，例如要求申请人具有明显的恶意行为，如屡次拒绝遵守费用命令或者故意挥霍财产。

Against this background, it is perhaps unsurprising that investment arbitration tribunals have consistently dismissed applications for security for costs in the past. In doing so, these tribunals have relied on a range of different arguments, such as the following:

在这种背景下，投资仲裁庭过去对于费用担保申请一贯予以驳回的做法或许不足为奇。在这样做时，这些仲裁庭会依据一系列不同的论点，例如：

– impropriety of prejudging the claimant’s case on the merits;[35]

– failure on the part of the respondent to establish concrete risk of non-payment;[36]

– there is nothing unusual in the fact that the claimant is a vehicle or has no assets and this does not justify a security for costs award;[37]

– a security for costs award would limit claimant’s access to justice;[38]

– the rejection of the security for costs application does not pose a threat to the integrity of the proceedings.[39]

– 不适当地对申请人案件的是非曲直进行预判；

– 未能证实被申请人存在拒不支付的具体风险；

– 申请人是专门机构或没有资产的情况并不反常，不能证明费用担保裁决是合理的；

– 费用裁决担保会限制申请人寻求正义；

– 驳回费用担保申请对仲裁程序的完整性没有威胁。

iii. Third-party funding as abuse or bad faith第三方资助是否是恶意行为或是失信行为？

Some have argued that third-party funding should in itself be a reason for ordering security against the funded party, or at least shift the burden of proof to the effect that the funded party must make a case why security should not be granted.[40] However, assuming that the test in investment arbitration is that the respondent must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in the form of an element of bad faith or abuse on the claimant side, the question is whether a claimant’s recourse to third-party funding affects the decision on security for costs.

有些人认为第三方资助本身应当成为向受助者下达费用担保指令的理由，或至少转移举证责任，即受助者必须说明为何不应当授予费用担保。然而，假定投资仲裁中的检验标准是，被申请人必须证明申请人存在失信或恶意的例外情况，问题在于申请人寻求第三方资助是否会影响关于费用担保的裁定。

An argument frequently raised by respondents in order to demonstrate an element of bad faith is that the simple fact of recourse to funding would necessarily or at least probably result in situations where the claimant’s expenses are being covered by a third party who stands to gain if the claimant wins, but would not be liable to meet any award of costs that might be made against the claimant if it lost.

为证明申请人存在失信行为，被申请人经常提出的一个论点是，向第三方资助寻求资助会导致申请人的费用由相关实体或个人承担，而这些资助者将在申请人胜诉时获利，但在申请人败诉时他们将无需承担任何可能不利于申请人的费用裁决。

The growing body of arbitral case law on this question in response to such argument has been quite consistent in holding that mere recourse to third-party funding is not generally considered to carry an element of bad faith or abuse, which is typically required by investment tribunals to award security for costs. Thus, the existence of a funding agreement alone has not been found by arbitration tribunals to be sufficient to grant security for costs.

为回应这种论点，关于这一问题的仲裁判例法越来越多，非常一致地认为，仅仅寻求第三方资助不含有失信或恶意行为的要素，该要素通常是投资仲裁庭裁定费用担保所要求的。因此，资助协议的存在也不足以成为下达费用担保指令的理由。

The first case to explicitly address the issue was Guaracachi America Inc. and Rurelec plc v. Bolivia, in which the tribunal refused to order security for costs.[41] Given the controversy that the question generated in the wake of RSM Production Corporation v. St Lucia, discussed below, it is worth citing the tribunal’s reasoning in extenso: “[a]lthough investment treaty tribunals clearly hold the power to grant provisional measures, an order for the posting of security for costs remains a very rare and exceptional measure. (…) The Respondent has not, however, been able to supply evidence to justify the extraordinary measure that it requests. As a factual matter, the Respondent has not shown a sufficient causal link such that the Tribunal can infer from the mere existence of third party funding that the Claimants will not be able to pay an eventual award of costs rendered against them, regardless of whether the funder is liable for costs or not. The Respondent’s analysis of Rurelec’s balance sheet and other related financial documents also does not sufficiently demonstrate that Rurelec will lack the means to pay a costs award or to obtain (additional) funding for that purpose. To the contrary, Rurelec appears to be an ongoing concern with assets beyond those involved in this arbitration and the Claimants have promptly paid all the requested deposits of costs with no suggestion that they have had trouble finding the necessary funds to do so.”[42]

第一个明确提及这一问题的案件是Guaracachi America Inc. and Rurelec plc v. Bolivia案，在该案中，仲裁庭拒绝下令提供费用担保。鉴于下文讨论的RSM Production Corporation v. St Lucia案引起的争议，有必要全文引用仲裁庭的推理：“尽管投资协定仲裁庭显然有权准予采取临时措施，但下令提供费用担保仍然是非常罕见的例外措施。(……)然而，被申请人未能提供证据证明其请求的非常措施的正当性。作为一个事实问题，被申请人没有证明充分的因果关系，使仲裁庭可以仅从第三方资助的存在推断，申请人将无法向他们支付最终裁定的费用，而不论资助者是否对费用负责。被申请人对Rurelec资产负债表和其他有关财务文件的分析也没有充分表明Rurelec将无法支付费用裁决或为该目的获得（额外）资助。相反，Rurelec似乎持续关注那些超出仲裁参与人利益的资产，申请人迅速支付了要求的所有费用，没有任何迹象表明他们在寻找必要的资金方面遇到了麻烦。”

In RSM Production Corporation v. St Lucia, where an ICSID tribunal – for the first time ever in investment treaty arbitration – issued a security for costs order.[43] The respondent argued that, while no ICSID tribunal had ordered security before, such measure would be justified here, pointing out that the claimant had failed to pay ICSID’s advance on costs, had not honoured costs awards rendered against it in a number of previous ICSID arbitrations, and that “the proceedings initiated by Claimant are funded by third parties”. Claimant’s counsel had admitted this already at a hearing on ICSID’s advance on costs. The respondent further claimed that these third parties would not be liable for adverse costs, enabling the claimant to engage in “arbitral hit and run”. The claimant contested the tribunal’s jurisdiction to order security and additionally argued that a difficult financial situation would not be sufficient to justify a grant of security payment against claimants in ICSID proceedings. Additionally, claimant challenged whether its current conduct would give reason to doubt about its willingness to pay adverse costs.

在RSM Production Corporation v. St Lucia案中，ICSID仲裁庭首次在投资协定仲裁中下达费用担保命令。被申请人辩称，尽管ICSID仲裁庭未曾下达过费用担保命令，但该措施在该案中具有正当理由，因申请人没有支付ICSID的预付款，同时也没有遵从之前ICSID仲裁对其下达的不利费用裁决，而且由申请人提起的仲裁程序由第三方资助。申请人的律师在一次有关ICSID预付费的听证会上已承认这一点。被申请人还声称，这些第三方资助者若不承担不利费用，将使申请人能够参与“仲裁肇事逃逸”。申请人对仲裁庭下达担保指令的权力提出质疑并进一步辩称，在ICSID仲裁程序中，财务困境不足以成为向申请人下达付款担保指令的理由。此外，申请人就其当下行为是否会使人质疑其支付不利费用的能力表示异议。

In reaching its decision to order security, the RSM tribunal did take into account that the claimant was impecunious and was funded by a third-party that could presumably not be made responsible for any adverse costs award. Notably, the tribunal pointed out that it would be “unjustified to burden Respondent with the risk emanating from the uncertainty as to whether or not the unknown third party will be willing to comply with a potential cost award”. Yet, the decisive factor for the tribunal to grant the requested security for costs was the fact that the claimant had a proven history of not complying with costs awards rendered against it. The fact that the third-party funder was not revealed (and was therefore unknown) to the tribunal was incidental in the tribunal’s reasoning.[44]

在裁定下达担保指令时，RSM仲裁庭确实考虑到申请人资金短缺且由第三方资助，该第三方可能无需对任何不利费用负责。值得注意的是，仲裁庭指出，“将不确定因素所造成的风险（即关于未知第三方是否愿意遵守潜在费用裁决的风险）强加给被申请人是不正当的。”然而，仲裁庭下达费用担保指令的决定性因素在于，申请人被证实曾存在不遵守不利费用裁决的行为。在仲裁庭的推理中，未向仲裁庭披露第三方资助者（因此未知）是附带情况。

In EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic,[45] the respondent advanced strikingly similar arguments, arguing not only that it had a good case on the merits, but also that the claimants “‘have a history of engaging in fraud and reneging on payment obligations’ and that they do not have the means to pay for the costs of the arbitration proceedings, which are entirely funded by third parties”. The claimants contested the tribunal’s power to order security for costs, argued that ordering security would unduly restrict their access to justice, and that their financial difficulties were “in large part attributable to acts and omissions of Respondent”. The arbitrators explicitly distinguished the case before them from RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia and denied the respondent’s security request, pointing out that “the underlying facts in [the RSM] arbitration were rather exceptional since the claimant was not only impecunious and funded by a third party, but also had a proven history of not complying with cost orders. As underlined by the arbitral tribunal, these circumstances were considered cumulatively.” The tribunal went on to note that the respondent had failed to establish that the claimants had defaulted on their payment obligations in the present proceedings or in other arbitration proceedings. It concluded by making it clear that “financial difficulties and third-party funding – which has become a common practice – do not necessarily constitute per se exceptional circumstances justifying that the Respondent be granted an order of security for costs”.

在EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic案的裁决中，被申请人提出十分相似的论点，不仅认为其在案情上占优势，而且认为申请人“曾存在参与欺诈和违反支付义务的行为”，并且申请人没有办法支付仲裁程序的费用，这些费用均由第三方资助。申请人质疑仲裁庭下达费用担保指令的权力，认为下此命令将过度限制其寻求公正，而且申请人的财政困难“很大程度上是由于被申请人的行为和疏忽造成”。仲裁员将本案与RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia案进行明确区分并驳回被申请人的担保请求，同时指出“RSM仲裁中的案情相当特殊，申请人不仅资金短缺并受第三方资助，而且还被证实存在不遵从费用命令的行为。正如仲裁庭强调的那样，这些情况已被累积考虑”。仲裁庭接着指出，被申请人未能证明申请人在目前诉讼或其他仲裁程序中违反付款义务。报告最后明确指出，“财政困难和第三方资助已成为一种常见做法，这种做法本身不必然构成应向被申请人签发费用担保命令的特殊情况。”

In South American Silver Limited v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, the respondent argued that the claimant was an impecunious shell company which was funded by a third party, which in combination, according to some arbitrators, would create “a prima facie case for granting the cautio judicatum solvi”, meaning that the burden of proof is transferred to the funded party, who must prove why the cautio judicatum solvi should not be ordered.[46] Referring to RSM v. St. Lucia, the claimant pointed out that “the only investment tribunal that has ever issued security for costs did so primarily because of the claimant’s notorious history of failing to pay prior cost awards”, and that the position that “the mere uncertainty as to the existence of a third-party funder’s obligation to reimburse constitutes ‘compelling grounds for security for costs’ correspond[s] to a minority view”, while “[t]he majority of international tribunals have stated the contrary in recent decisions, and on the contrary, the existence of a funder indicates that the claim is plausible on the merits”. The PCA tribunal transferred the “extreme and exceptional circumstances-test” favoured by ICSID tribunals into the framework of Article 26 of the applicable UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, concluding that “Bolivia’s mere analysis of SAS’ or SASC’s balances and other related accounting documents, or the mere existence of a third-party funder do not meet the high threshold set forth by investment tribunals.”[47] In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal explicitly referred to the two previously mentioned cases, and confirmed that “the mere existence of a third-party funder is not an exceptional situation justifying security for costs”, explaining that:

在South American Silver Limited v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia案中，被申请人辩称申请人是一家资金短缺且由第三方资助的空壳公司，根据一些仲裁员的观点，这些事实结合起来足以“初步签发费用担保命令”，这意味着举证责任转移到受助者，其必须举证不应下达此种命令的原因。申请人援引RSM v. St. Lucia案并指出，“唯一一个曾签发过费用担保命令的投资仲裁庭如此行事的主要原因在于，申请人曾存在未能支付先前费用裁决的不堪历史”，而且“单纯的不确定性（第三方资助者是否存在赔偿义务的不确定性）构成‘签发费用担保命令的令人信服的理由’的观点，也只符合少数人的主张”，“大多数国际仲裁庭在近期裁决中都表达了相反观点，即第三方资助者的存在表明索赔在案情上貌似是合理的。”PCA仲裁庭将ICSID仲裁庭青睐的“极端特殊情况的标准”转为可适用的《UNCITRAL仲裁规则》第26条的框架，认为“仅凭Bolivia对于SAC或者SACS的收支情况和其他财务文件的分析，或者仅凭第三方资助者的存在，不足以符合投资仲裁庭所设立的较高标准。”为得出这一结论，仲裁庭明确援引两个前述案例，并确认“第三方资助者的存在不足以成为签发费用担保命令的正当理由”，并解释道：

“if the existence of these third-parties alone, without considering other factors, becomes determinative on granting or rejecting a request for security for costs, respondents could request and obtain the security on a systematic basis, increasing the risk of blocking potentially legitimate claims.”[48]

“不考虑其他因素的情况下，如果仅凭这些第三方资助者的存在就能成为授予或驳回费用担保请求的决定因素，那么被申请人就可以系统性地请求并获得担保，这会增加阻止潜在合法索赔的风险。”

In a procedural order issued in April 2017 in the case Eskosol S.P.A. v. Italy,[49] the tribunal rejected the respondent’s request for an order that the claimant post a bank guarantee of US$ 250,000 or prove it had obtained an undertaking from its third-party funder to pay any costs awards against it, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant had been declared insolvent and placed under receivership in 2013. In its security for costs application the respondent argued that the claimant’s insolvency made it unlikely that it would be able to meet any adverse costs, if the claim was declined. The respondent further argued that a security for costs order was necessary and urgent because it had “a suspicion” that the claimant was funded by a third-party funder, which –according to the respondent-increased the risk that the claimant would not comply with a costs order. Responding to the security for costs application, the claimant confirmed that it had been funded by a third-party funder which had assisted the claimant to purchase an ATE insurance policy protecting the company against adverse costs of up to Euro 1 million. While accepting that the claimant’s insolvency meant that the claimant would be unable to meet an adverse costs award from its own funds, the tribunal stated that the ATE insurance policy was sufficient to cover the amount of costs requested by the respondent. The tribunal thus concluded that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that it was either necessary or urgent to grant the security for costs application.

2017年4月，在 Eskosol S.P.A. v. Italy案所下达的程序令中，尽管申请人已宣告破产而并于2013年被接管，仲裁庭仍然驳回了被申请人的请求，即请求仲裁庭命令申请人提供25万美金的银行担保或证明其已从第三方资助者处获得了支付任何不利费用裁决的许诺。在其费用担保的申请中，被申请人辩称，申请人的破产使其在索赔失败时无法支付任何不利费用。被申请人还认为费用担保命令是必要的和紧迫的，因为其怀疑申请人是由第三方在资助，根据被申请人的说法，申请人不遵守费用裁决的风险将会增大。对于费用担保申请，申请人承认它由一个第三方资助者资助，且该资助者协助申请人购买ATE保险，承保此公司最高一百万欧元的不利费用。仲裁庭虽然承认申请人的破产意味着他无法以其资产支付不利费用，但仍表示ATE保单足以覆盖被申请人所请求的费用。因此，仲裁庭得出结论认为，被申请人未能证明费用担保申请的必要性或紧迫性。

However, in two recent procedural orders issued in July 2017 in relation to the same investment dispute in the parallel cases of Luis Garcia Armas v. Venezuela and Manuel Garcia Armas et al. v. Venezuela,[50] the tribunal (sitting in both cases) ordered the funded claimants to provide evidence on their solvency before deciding a request for security for costs made by the respondent state.

然而，在2017年7月签发的涉及同一投资争议（Luis Garcia Armas v Venezuela案和Manuel Garcia Armas et al. v Venezuela案）的两项程序令中，仲裁庭（两案由同一仲裁庭合并审理）在裁定被申请国的费用担保请求之前，曾要求受助者提供偿付能力的证明。

In these two cases, the claimants had voluntarily disclosed the existence of a third-party funding agreement. In response to a request by the respondent state, the tribunal had subsequently ordered the claimants to disclose the actual terms of their funding arrangements. Because the funding agreement included a provision that the funder did not undertake to finance any adverse costs related to the arbitration, the respondent requested the tribunal to order the claimants to post a US$ 5 million bond as security for adverse costs.

在这两个案件中，申请人曾自愿披露存在第三方资助协议。对于被申请国的请求，仲裁庭随后命令申请人披露资助协议的实际条款。由于资助协议其中一个条款规定资助者不承担任何有关仲裁的不利费用，因此被申请人请求仲裁庭命令申请人为不利费用提供500万美元的费用担保。

Before deciding on the request for security, the tribunal asked the claimants to provide reliable evidence of their solvency, including asset valuations. The claimants were also directed to inform the tribunal of the jurisdictions where those assets were located, in order to assess the enforceability of any future adverse costs order. While these proceedings were still ongoing, at the time this Report was finalized, and the decision on the respondent’s security for costs application was still pending, the tribunal’s request that the claimants provide evidence of their solvency appears to have shifted the burden of proof of impecuniosity from the respondent to the claimants.

在裁定费用担保请求之前，仲裁庭要求申请人提供可靠的偿付能力证明，包括资产评估。申请人还被指示将这些资产所在的司法辖区告知仲裁庭，以评估将来任何不利费用裁决的可执行性。截止本报告定稿之时，这些案件还在继续，对被申请人费用担保请求的裁定还未作出，但仲裁庭要求申请人提供偿付能力证明，似乎已经把资金短缺的举证责任从被申请人转移给申请人。

c. Concluding Analysis for Both Commercial and Investment Arbitration对商业仲裁和投资仲裁的分析总结

As the preceding analysis shows, a key aspect in any security for costs analysis will usually be the financial situation of the party against which security is requested. Subject to the security for costs test under the applicable national law, tribunals tend to require sufficient evidence to conclude that the current financial circumstances of the claimant are such that it will not be able to pay the respondent’s costs at the end of the proceedings.

如前所述，任何费用担保分析的一个关键方面通常是担保请求所针对的当事人的财务状况。在遵守适用的国内法所规定的费用标准的前提下，仲裁庭往往要求有足够的证据证明申请人就目前的财务状况将无法在诉讼结束时支付被申请人的费用。

What can, then, be the relevance of a third-party funding agreement in determining whether the claimant is impecunious? On the one hand, it could be argued that the fact that a claimant is actively seeking external funding to pursue its claim is evidence (or at least an indication) of the claimant’s difficult financial circumstances. It might even be said that the existence of third-party funding arrangements should set a rebuttable presumption of the claimant’s impecuniosity.[51] However, the assumption that a funded party is impecunious miscomprehends the current state of third-party funding. Most of the funders, including in the Task Force, suggest and arbitration practitioners confirm that third-party funding is increasingly used by large, solvent companies that simply wish to share risk and maintain liquidity. As has been pointed out, “companies that want to maintain sufficient cash flow to continue their regular business while the arbitral proceedings are ongoing, or that simply want to share the risk of the arbitration with a third party” may “seek financing to pursue a meritorious claim.”[52] As has been noted “third-party financing is increasingly a tool of choice, not of necessity. Some of the world’s largest companies are regular users of outside financing.”[53]

那么，第三方资助协议中的哪些因素与确认申请人经济是否困难有关？一方面，可以认为，申请人积极寻求外部资助以提起索赔的事实可以成为申请人经济状况困难的证据（至少是一个迹象）。甚至可以说第三方资助安排的存在应构成一个可推翻的关于申请人资金短缺的推定。然而，关于受助者资金短缺的假定是对第三方资助现状的误解。大多数投资者（包括工作组成员中的资助者）表示，越来越多有偿付能力的大型公司都选择第三方资助，只希望分担风险并维持资产的流动性，这一点得到仲裁从业者的确认。如前所述，“那些希望在仲裁进行过程中维持充足现金流以继续正常商业运转，或仅希望与第三方分担仲裁风险的企业”可能“寻求资助以提起一个有价值的索赔”。正如已经指出的，“第三方资助日益成为一个非必要的选择工具。一些全球大型企业已成为外部资助的固定用户。”

These observations provide one explanation as to why arbitration tribunals, as discussed in the preceding sections, tend to reject security for costs applications which are mainly or exclusively based on the grounds that the claimant is funded by a third-party funder. It is thus suggested that applications for security for costs in international arbitration should be determined irrespective of any funding arrangement, and on the basis of, among other reasons, impecuniousness. In the first instance, the burden should be on the moving party, and it is suggested that no party should have to defend a motion for security unless and until the moving party makes a prima facie showing of impecuniousness. If no such showing is made, then the motion should be denied outright.

如前几节所述，对于主要或完全基于申请人由第三方提供资助的理由而提出的费用担保申请，仲裁庭倾向于驳回，这些意见为仲裁庭的该行为提供了一种解释。因此建议，在国际仲裁中，仲裁庭对于仲裁费用担保申请的裁定应以资金短缺为主要参考因素，而不论是否有第三方资助。首先，动议方负有举证责任，除非动议方已初步证明存在资金短缺的事实，否则任何其他方对该动议均无举证义务。如果动议方未作出初步证明，则该动议应当被立即驳回。

If a party is found to be impecunious, that party should then be given the opportunity to present additional evidence of funding or have a security for costs award imposed. If the party has third-party funding arrangements in place, in which the funder agrees to pay any costs award, it could then be submitted to the tribunal as evidence that no security need be posted.

如果一方当事人被认定为资金短缺，仲裁庭应给予该方出具额外资金证明或提供仲裁费用担保的机会。如果该当事人有适当的第三方资助协议，即资助者同意支付任何费用裁决，那么该协议可提交给法庭作为证据且无需再提供担保。

At that stage, a request for disclosure of third-party funding agreements should normally be accepted as the moving party and the tribunal should be able to examine the relevant parts of the third-party funding agreement in the context of the security for costs application against an impecunious party. In this regard, ordering disclosure of the third-party funding agreements in their entirety may have a negative effect on the arbitration proceedings. Tribunals are thus encouraged to limit disclosure orders to the provisions that are strictly necessary to assess the extent to which the funder may cover (or not) an adverse costs order. Another approach could be to allow the funded party, its counsel or even the funder to provide the tribunal with a witness statement or affidavit stating its identity and whether under the third funding party agreements it can be held liable for adverse costs.

在此阶段，对于要求披露第三方资助协议的请求，仲裁庭通常应当接受，以便动议方和仲裁庭能在费用担保请求（针对资金短缺的当事人而提出）的背景下，对第三方资助协议的相关部分（尤其是关于资助者终止资助权利和承担不利费用的条款）进行审查。这一点上，要求完全披露第三方资助协议可能会对仲裁程序产生负面影响。因此，仲裁庭应将披露范围限定在对于评估（资助者可能对不利费用进行补偿的程度）确实必要的条款之内。另一种做法是允许受助者及其律师，甚至是资助者向仲裁庭提供证词或宣誓表明其身份并说明其根据第三方资助协议是否承担不利费用。

As already indicated, one important provision in a third-party funding agreement, which the tribunals should review, will be the provision about whether the funder has agreed to cover adverse costs, including an order for security for costs. The funding agreement should normally clearly set out whether the funder will pay a defined sum to the claimant in the event of an adverse award of costs, whether that promise endures if the funding agreement has been breached or otherwise terminated, and whether the funder will pay any order of security for costs. And if the party is impecunious, both the funder and party should be aware that a funding agreement in which a funder is not obligated to irrevocably pay an award of costs may cause the tribunal to order security for costs. In all cases, where a funder has agreed with the funded party to finance any adverse costs, the capital adequacy of that funder to meet an adverse costs award, whether in its own right or by virtue of an ATE policy, is clearly relevant in assessing whether adequate security has been provided.

正如已经提到的，仲裁庭应对第三方资助协议中的一条重要条款进行审查，即关于资助者是否同意承担不利费用（包括费用担保命令）的条款。资助协议通常应明确规定，资助者在发生不利费用裁决时是否会向申请人支付一定金额，这个承诺在资助协议被违反或终止时是否仍然持续，以及资助者是否会支付任何的费用担保。如果当事人资金短缺，那么资助者和当事人都应意识到，如果根据资助协议资助者没有义务支付不可撤销的裁决费用，仲裁庭可能因此签发费用担保命令。在所有情况下，如果资助者同意支付受助者的不利费用，那么资助者的资产充足率（无论是凭借其自身能力或是通过ATE保单支付不利费用裁决）显然与评估所提供的担保是否充分有关。

Another relevant provision in the context of a security for costs application will be the provision in a third-party funding agreement about the funder’s termination rights. Where a third-party funder has agreed to finance adverse costs, whether and under which conditions a funder can discontinue funding may be a relevant consideration for tribunals to take into account. Most professional funders have very clear termination provisions which set out, in circumstances where they have agreed to be liable for adverse costs, when they are liable for such costs, which typically is for the duration of their funding. Where a funder is a member of the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales (ALF), its funding agreements must comply with the ALF Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders (ALF Code, January 2014). Article 13.2 ALF Code requires that, in case of a dispute over termination, “a binding opinion shall be obtained from a Queen’s Counsel who shall be instructed jointly or nominated by the Chairman of the Bar Council”. Only if the Queen’s Counsel agrees with the funder that it is lawful to terminate, will the Termination Notice be valid. Funders operating in other jurisdictions may have internal codes that set out their practice in respect of whether and under which circumstances they can terminate funding. In all cases where the defendant has previously knowingly proceeded on the basis that the funder would meet the adverse costs, it is suggested that third-party funders or funded parties should notify the defendant if funding is discontinued.

与费用担保申请有关的另一个条款是，第三方资助协议中资助者的终止权条款。在一个第三方资助者同意支付不利费用时，资助者是否以及在什么情况下停止资助，可能是仲裁庭需要考虑的相关问题。大多数专业资助者都有很明确的终止条款，其中规定在资助者同意承担不利费用的情况下，该资助者对不利费用承担责任的期间，这个期间通常为资助者的资助期间。当一个资助者是英格兰和威尔士诉讼资助协会（ALF）的会员时，其资助协议就要遵从《ALF诉讼资助者行为准则》。该准则第13.2条要求，如果就协议终止发生争议，“应向御用律师获取有约束性的法律意见，该御用律师应当由律师协会主席共同指定或提名。”只有当御用律师同意资助者的观点认为协议的终止是合法时，终止通知才有效。其他司法辖区的投资者可能有内部规则，对是否以及在什么情况下能够终止资助进行规定。在被申请人已经知道投资者将承担不利费用的情况下，如果资助停止，建议第三方资助者或受助者应对被申请人作出通知。

The form of security for costs order was the subject of a large number of comments at the public consultation period. For example, comments were received to the effect that a bank guarantee is typically costly and therefore it may not be the most cost-efficient way of providing security for costs. Under this view, it would be preferable for tribunals to require evidence of “a credit worthy third party” or order payment into escrow account.

在公众谘询期间，很多人曾就费用担保命令的形式提出意见。例如，收到的评论认为，银行担保通常费用很高，因此可能不是性价比最高的费用担保方式。根据这一观点，仲裁庭最好要求提供“有信誉的第三方”的证据或要求将款项存入托管账户。

Other comments addressed alternatives. One comment suggested that a deed poll executed by the third-party funder in favour of the respondent and the tribunal would be a reasonable alternative form of security. Another comment noted that in circumstances where a party is impecunious and calls upon a third-party funder, it will generally be impossible for that party to obtain a bank guarantee, because the bank will ask for collateral that the impecunious party will precisely be unable to give. In such a situation, the only way to post security would be to increase the amount committed by the third-party funder, which however would increase the ultimate amount that the party posting security will have to return to the funder, in case it prevails in the arbitration.

其他评论提到替代方案。一种评论认为，第三方资助者为被申请人和仲裁庭出具的单边契据是一种合理的替代担保形式。另一项评论指出，在一方缺乏资金并需要第三方资助者的情况下，该方通常不可能获得银行保证，因为银行将要求缺乏资金的一方提供担保物，而这种担保正是缺乏资金方所无法提供的。在这种情况下，设置担保的唯一方法是增加第三方资助者所承诺的数额，但如果提供担保的当事人在仲裁中获胜，该当事人须返还给资助者的最终数额也将增加。

The Task Force concluded, while the question of the appropriate form that security for costs should be given should be left to the tribunal’s discretion, tribunals should take into account the existing arrangements between the funded party and external funders in this regard. For example, the existence of an ATE insurance policy or any other form of evidence of indemnification arrangements, including with a third-party funder, should generally be considered as adequate evidence that the claimant will meet an adverse costs award.[54] By way of comparison, in cases where the claimant is funded by a P&I and FD&D club or an ordinary insurer, security for costs can be provided by way of a club letter of guarantee or an insurer’s bond. Typically, the club and insurer have a contractual obligation to indemnify the member or insured for any liability incurred, including costs awards. In the absence of an ATE policy or other form of evidence of indemnification arrangements, tribunals could well consider ordering security for costs by way of a parent company guarantee, a bank guarantee or, as in exceptional circumstances, a payment into a bank account.[55]

工作组的结论是，虽然费用担保的适当形式问题应当由仲裁庭自行判断，但仲裁庭应考虑到受助者和外部资助者在这方面的现有协议。例如，存在ATE保险单或任何其他形式的赔偿安排证据，包括与第三方资助者的证据，通常应被视为申请人将支付不利费用的充分证据。相比之下，如果申请人是由P&I和FD&D协会或者普通保险人提供资助，费用担保可以通过协会或保险人保函的形式提供。通常情况下，协会和保险人有合同义务赔偿会员或被保险人所承担的任何责任，包括费用裁决。若没有ATE保险单或其他形式的赔偿安排证据的情况下，仲裁庭完全可以考虑通过母公司担保、银行担保或在特殊情况下向银行账户付款的方式，命令对费用提供担保。

Finally, when a security for costs application is lodged, an arbitral tribunal should consider indicating to the respondent (the requesting party) that, should the claimant prevail on the merits of the case, the respondent will be held liable for the costs reasonably incurred by the claimant (funded party) in posting security. It should be for the claimant (funded party) to substantiate the amount of costs it reasonably incurred in posting security. This seems desirable from a policy perspective, as it provides a legally fair and financially risk neutral solution to granting security for costs. At the beginning of the proceedings, the tribunal can at best perform a prima facie assessment of the respondent’s chances of succeeding on the merits. If the tribunal denies the respondent’s application for security it risks evaluating the merits in a way that ex post may prejudice the respondent, should the respondent ultimately prevail and be unable to recover costs. At the same time, if the tribunal grants the respondent’s security request and the claimant ultimately prevails, the security application would turn out to be a win-win option for the respondent, as there would be no downside for having requested (as it turned out unnecessary) security. By granting security payment on the premise that the respondent must contribute towards the cost of the security should the claimant prevail on the merits, the tribunal can restore the financial balance between the parties, both of which continue to run risks in relation to the money posted. This approach avoids prejudging the case in favour of either side. The tribunal may even order the requesting party to provide counter-indemnity and its own security.

最后，当费用担保申请被提出时，仲裁庭应考虑向被申请人（请求方）表明，如果申请人在案件是非上获胜，被申请人将承担申请人（受助者）为提供担保而产生的合理费用。对于申请人为提供担保而产生的合理费用的数额，申请人应进行举证。从政策角度，这似乎是可取的，因其为费用担保的授予提供了一个法律上公平，财务风险中立的解决方案。在仲裁程序开始时，仲裁庭充其量只能对被申请人在案情上胜诉的机率进行初步评估。如果仲裁庭驳回了被申请人的担保申请，那么该仲裁庭可能以一种事后可能损害被申请人利益的方式冒险评估案情，如果被申请人最终胜诉却无法补偿费用。同时，如果仲裁庭授予费用担保并且最终申请人胜诉，那么费用担保申请对于被申请人来说是一个双赢选择，这样做没有任何不妥（即使发现没有必要）。若费用担保的授予以被申请人在申请人胜诉时须为担保费用负责为前提，仲裁庭可以恢复双方的财务平衡，使双方都对该担保费用承担后续风险。这种做法能够避免对案件作出有利于任何一方的预判。仲裁庭甚至可以命令提出请求的当事人提供交叉担保及其本身的担保。

IV. Conclusion结论

In conclusion, the principles articulated in this Chapter are based on analysis of existing sources and reported investment arbitration cases. The Task Force concluded that these principles are a sound reflection of the existing legal framework, including standards set by investment arbitration cases. The Task Force nevertheless recognizes that these issues can also implicate larger macro-economic and structural debates in investment arbitration, such as those discussed in detail in Chapter 8. If the policies and considerations underpinning third-party funding, which continue to evolve particularly in investment arbitration, change in the future, this change may affect the legal analysis and principles articulated in this Chapter.

最后，本章阐述的原则基于对现有资源和投资仲裁案例报告的分析。工作组得出结论认为，这些原则充分反映了现有的法律框架，包括投资仲裁案件确定的标准。然而，工作组认识到，这些问题也可能涉及投资仲裁方面更大的宏观经济和结构性争论，如第8章详细讨论的问题。如果支持第三方资助的政策和考虑因素在今后发生变化，尤其在投资仲裁方面，这种变化可能影响本章所述的法律分析和原则。