芮安牟：设立中国国际商事法庭的必要性和前景——在“一带一路”背景下国际商事争议解决高峰论坛上的演讲｜跨境顾释

栏目主持人顾嘉按：芮安牟（Anselmo Reyes）教授是香港大学法学院教授，现任新加坡国际商事法庭国际法官。他曾在香港高等法院担任法官多年，并在其间处理了大量的有关国际仲裁的诉讼案件，且于今年被聘为中国最高人民法院国际商事专家委员会的32名专家之一。2018年9月8日，芮安牟教授出席了在西安举办的“一带一路”背景下国际商事争议解决高峰论坛。

作为一名资深国际法官和法律学者，芮教授长期致力于推广包括国际诉讼、仲裁和调解在内的“多元化争端解决机制”，并对国际商事法庭的运作和发展，具有深刻的见解。经芮教授的授权，我们于本期“跨境顾释”栏目中，刊登他在这次高峰论坛上的英文发言稿，并附上中文翻译件，以飨读者。

---

Distinguished guests, fellow judges, ladies and gentlemen:

尊敬的法官，各位来宾，女士们、先生们，大家好！

Time is short, so I am going to make four short points. The first is to list out the number of international commercial courts that now exist or are about to come into existence. Second, you will see that there are now a lot of international commercial courts. I am going to ask: What is the point of going to an international commercial court, unless the judgments can be recognized and enforced elsewhere? Third, why bother to go to an international commercial court? Why not just go to a regular court? What is so special about an international commercial court that people should go there, for the settlement, for the resolution, of their cross-border commercial disputes? Finally, I will ask: What are the implications for dispute resolution along the Belt and Road? In particular, how does going to an international commercial court stack up against going to international commercial arbitration?

囿于时间关系，我在此主要讲四方面的内容：第一，介绍目前国际上现存或将要设立的几个国际商事法庭；第二，现在有很多国际商事法庭，那选择国际商事法庭的意义何在，他们的判决是否能够在其他地方得到承认和执行；第三，为什么要去国际商事法庭，而不是去普通的法院解决国际商事争议；最后，我将和大家分享“一带一路”对国际商事争议解决方式的影响，特别是国际商事法庭相对于国际仲裁机构的一些优势。

My first point: There are about, by my count, 10 international commercial courts that have recently sprung up, or that are being talked about. Let me list them. There are the Dubai International Financial Center Courts. There is the Singapore International Commercial Court. There is the Astana International Financial Center Court in Kazakhstan. There is the Netherlands Commercial Court. There is the International Chamber of the Court of Appeal in Paris. There is the English Commercial Court. There is the New York Federal Court (the Second Circuit Federal Court). There is the Court of Chancery in Delaware. Of course, there is the China International Commercial Court, the CICC. And there is talk about an EU (European Union) Multinational Investment Court.

首先，我先向大家介绍一下国际上的几个商事法庭。据我了解，目前国际上大概有10个最新发展起来的国际商事法庭：一是迪拜国际金融中心法院（DIFC），二是新加坡国际商事法庭（SICC），三是哈萨克斯坦阿斯塔纳国际金融中心法院（AIFC），四是荷兰国际商事法庭（NCC），五是在法国巴黎上诉法院里的国际商事法庭，六是英国商事法院，七是纽约联邦法院（第二联邦巡回法院），八是特拉华州衡平法院，当然，还有位于中国的中国国际商事法庭（CICC），以及欧盟的多边投资法院。

One might ask: Are there too many international commercial courts now?  I will come back to and answer that question at the end of what I have to say. At the moment, notice that international commercial courts are not all alike. They have, or pursue, different strategies and have different selling points. For instance, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts are targeting the markets around the Gulf and the Mediterranean. The Netherlands Commercial Court is saying:  “After Brexit, don’t bother to go to the English Commercial Court. Come to us, because we are cheaper, we are good, we can speak English, and our judgments can be enforced in the EU.” The International Chamber of the the Court of Appeal in Paris says the same thing:  “You can argue before us in English and our judgments will be enforceable in the EU. So don’t bother to go to the London Commercial Court after Brexit.” The main point here, the take-away point, is that different commercial courts are catering to different markets with different strategies.

这里大家会问，国际性商事法庭是不是太多了？这个问题我将会在本次演讲最后来回答。现在来看，这些国际性商事法庭各不相同，它们有不同的定位和不同的“卖点”。例如，迪拜国际金融中心法院主要面对海湾地区和地中海地区国家；荷兰国际商事法院是在英国脱欧之后兴起的，旨在鼓励大家去荷兰解决商事争议，而不用再跑到英国去，荷兰国际商事法院表示他们的费用更低，运行良好，可以说英语，而且做出的判决可以在欧盟境内得到执行；法国的上诉法院国际法庭一样，他们的程序也可以用英语，判决可以在欧盟境内得到执行，因此在英国脱欧之后大家不必再去伦敦的商事法院。因此，可以看出这些国际性商事法庭针对的是不同的市场，他们各自有不同的策略。

Let me go to the second point: Are international commercial courts relevant? How are their judgments going to be recognized and enforced in other counties? Let me take as a specific example here the court with which I am most familiar, the Singapore International Commercial Court, the SICC. One way to have your judgments recognized and enforced in other countries is to enter into treaties, bilateral treaties with other countries for the mutual recognition and enforcement of each other’s judgments. Singapore does not have too many such bilateral treaties. Those treaties only cover 10 or so jurisdictions. Another way is to enter into multinational treaties or international conventions for the recognition and enforcement of judgments. One example of such convention is the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention. Singapore is a party to that convention. The European Union (including Denmark) is also a party to that convention. So that, as a result, the judgments of the SICC can be enforced in all countries of the European Union and the judgments of the countries in the European Union can be enforced in Singapore. China has signed the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention, but has yet to ratify it. It is anticipated that it will be ratified in the future. From the Singapore point of view, being a party to the Hague Choice of Court Convention adds another 30 jurisdictions in which Singapore judgments can be recognized and enforced. So, that makes about 40 jurisdictions in which, the SICC’s, my court’s, judgments can be recognized and enforced around the world.

下面将进入第二大点，关于国际性商事法庭所做出的判决的承认与执行问题，这些判决将如何得到承认与执行呢？我在新加坡国际商事法庭担任法官，在此我选择最为熟悉的新加坡国际商事法庭作为例子。承认与执行法院判决的一种方式是通过条约，即根据国家之间的双边条约来承认与执行另一国的判决，新加坡并没有签署很多这样的双边条约，它只跟大概10个司法辖区签署了双边协定；另外一种方式是通过多边协定或者国际公约来承认与执行另一国的判决，例如新加坡是2005年海牙《法院选择协议公约》的缔约国，欧盟（包括丹麦）也是该公约的缔约国，因此新加坡国际商事法庭的判决可以根据这个公约在欧盟地区得到承认和执行，而欧盟地区的国际商事法庭做出的判决也可以在新加坡得到承认与执行。中国也签署了这个公约，但尚未批准。不过，国际上预测中国未来会批准这个公约。从新加坡的角度来看，在签署和批准这个公约之后，又有30个司法辖区能够对新加坡法院所做出的判决予以承认和执行。因此总体算来，世界上就有将近40个司法辖区能够承认与执行新加坡国际商事法庭所做出的判决。

You might say: “Professor Reyes, 40 jurisdictions, that is very small, in comparison with the 159 jurisdictions that are party to the New York Convention. It does not add up, who would go to your court when you can enforce an arbitral award in 158 other jurisdictions. 158 versus 40 jurisdictions? You simply do not match!”

但是你们可能会问我，40个司法辖区，这个数量是不是仍然很少呢，特别是与《纽约公约》有159个成员国对比来看。因此，你们可能会问说，那为什么还要去新加坡国际商事法庭，而不是通过国际仲裁来解决争议呢，毕竟仲裁裁决可以在其他158个国家通过《纽约公约》得到承认与执行？

But the answer, I suggest, is not so simple. Most civil law and common law countries, have modernized their codes of civil procedure or their laws of civil procedure, so that foreign judgments will normally be recognized and enforced. The judgments can normally be enforced, even in the absence of a treaty under modern rules of civil procedure, subject to conditions of indirect jurisdiction, reciprocity, due process and public policy. Because of the shortage of time, I cannot go into details now, but I will be happy to do so, if anyone is interested, during the roundtable discussion later today.

我认为答案并非如此简单。大部分普通法系和大陆法系国家通过对民事诉讼法律的调整，已经能够实现对外国的商事判决的承认与执行。所以即使在没有国际公约或者协定的情况下，一国也能够通过国内民事诉讼法（受限于间接管辖权、互惠、正当程序和公共政策等规定），对外国法院判决进行承认与执行。由于时间有限，我在此不对这一问题详细展开，如大家有兴趣，我接下来会在圆桌会谈中再和大家详细讨论。

Simply by way of example, I will point this out. Recently there has been the Nanning Statement issued by ASEAN Chief Justices and the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of China. Paragraph 7 of the Nanning Statement puts forward a liberal regime for the recognition and enforcement of judgments. More recently, last Friday (31 August 2018), the Chief Justices of China and Singapore entered into a Memorandum of Guidance on the mutual recognition and enforcement of Singapore and Chinese judgments. I suggest then that, even in the absence of a convention, even in the absence of a treaty, there are possibilities for recognizing and enforcing judgments mutually in different jurisdictions under ordinary domestic law. I therefore suggest that international commercial courts are relevant and that they can compete with international commercial arbitration.

但是，我仍然想提出最近中国和东盟通过了《南宁声明》，这是中国和东盟国家的最高法院院长间通过的促进相互之间司法协助和区域内跨境纠纷解决机制之构建的一项声明。《南宁声明》第七段提出了一项更为宽松、更为灵活的承认与执行不同国家间商事判决的一种方式。最近，就是上周五（2018年8月31日）中国和新加坡两国的最高法院院长签署了《指导备忘录》来确定相互之间如何承认与执行另一方的判决。因此，我在这里想要指出的是，即使在没有双边协定、没有公约的情况下，一国的判决也有可能根据另一国的一般国内法律规定在另一国得到承认与执行。因此，我认为国际商事法庭有能力与国际仲裁机构进行有力竞争。

Let us go to my third point: Why bother to go to an international commercial court? Why not just go to a regular court? What does an international commercial court offer that the regular courts do not? Because international commercial courts are precisely that——international, they have to adopt an international procedure, an international legal procedure. They cannot have the complex procedures of the regular courts, but have to simplify their procedures (and we are trying to do that in Singapore for the SICC). International commercial courts have to have a procedure for the whole of world: common law and civil law jurisdictions. For this reason, as touched upon Professor Shan a moment ago, we are trying to adopt the best practices of arbitration, the best practices of litigation, the best practices of the common law, and the best practices of the civil law. That is our target in the SICC, insofar as civil procedure is concerned. We may not quite be there yet in the SICC, but we are working towards it. In particular, we are looking at our rules relating to discovery, disclosure, and the proof of foreign law in order to ensure that they are as simple and accessible to everyone as possible. Consequently, I suggest that what international commercial courts offer that the regular courts may not, is fast, efficient, cost-effective, and fair procedures. You have to do this, because the survival of international commercial courts depends on establishing an international credibility. People have to believe in the court, if they are going to come to the court.

接下来进入第三个大点，为什么要去国际商事法庭，而不是一般的法院解决国际商事争议，国际商事法庭有哪些好处与优势？由于国际商事法庭的国际化，它必须采取一套比较国际化的法律程序，而不是像一般法院采取比较复杂的规则。为什么要采取一套比较简化的国际性的商事争议解决规则呢（我们正努力在新加坡国际商事法庭实现这一点）？因为国际商事法庭是要向全世界提供一套全球化的争议解决规则，针对的不仅仅是大陆法系的国家，也包括普通法系的国家。新加坡国际商事法院的一个目标，就是要融合世界上最好的仲裁实践和诉讼实践，以及最好的普通法和大陆法的实践，这个也就是单文华教授刚刚所提到的一套融合仲裁和诉讼的方式。我们新加坡国际商事法庭就是要实现这样的目标，虽然目前还没有完全实现，但这是我们的目标，我们会努力实现。特别是，我们将关注证据披露和外国法证明的相关规则，确保这些规则简洁易懂。因此，我认为国际商事法庭相对于一般法院的优势是它快速、高效、经济和公正。我们必须这么做，因为国际商事法庭能够持续存在将有赖于它的可信度，大家去法院的前提就是信任法院。

Then we go to my final point:  What are the implications for the Belt and Road? Some implications are self-evident. All of us must encourage greater legal cooperation amongst the many countries in the Belt and Road. That greater legal cooperation can be in a form of a procedure for service abroad if a respondent is situated abroad. We have got to develop the means to serve process abroad. We have got to develop the means to take evidence abroad where witnesses are abroad.

接下来将进入我本次讲话的最后一个大点，对“一带一路”沿线商事争议解决机制的启示。有一些启示是非常明显的，我们所有“一带一路”沿线的国家都应当加强相互之间的司法协助，其中一项就是关于域外送达的司法协助程序。如果被告在国外，我们需要确立一个境外送达机制。此外，我们还要建立境外调查取证的司法协助，特别是在证人位于境外的情况下。

I think that we should not just be looking at litigation as a means to resolve disputes. International commercial courts can also encourage the use of mediation. Mediation in commercial cases is said to be effective in about 70% of cases. Next year (2019), around about August, the Singapore Convention will be open for membership of Contracting States. That convention will enable settlement agreements, agreements that are reached through mediation, to be enforced across borders. Therefore, litigation, coupled with mediation will become an effective counterpoise to arbitration. This is, I think, the key benefit for the Belt and Road. People now go to international commercial arbitration, because they see no alternative. If you want to enforce an arbitral award, you can rely on the New York Convention. Until now, there has been no equivalent to that convention in litigation or mediation. With the rise of international commercial courts, there is now competition for arbitration. There are alternativse to international commercial arbitration. If arbitration is too expensive, put in a choice of the court clause in your commercial agreement. Go for the CICC, for example, or the SICC. On the other hand, if litigation is too expensive, put in an arbitration clause in your commercial agreement. Let there be competition between the different modes of dispute resolution. International commercial arbitration is notoriously expensive. This competition from international commercial courts can only bring down the cost of dispute resolution along the Belt and Road. That can only be for the good of ordinary citizens.

另一方面，我认为我们不仅仅应当关注国际商事诉讼，也应当关注国际调解机制的使用。据调查，国际调解机制已经在70%的案件当中发挥了非常重要的作用。2019年8月左右起，《新加坡调解公约》将供联合国成员国加入。该公约将确保和促进通过调解达成的和解协议的跨境承认与执行。因此，诉讼和调解相结合的方式会成为足以和仲裁匹敌的争议解决方式，我认为这是“一带一路”沿线投资中一个非常重要的争议解决机制。目前大家通常选择国际仲裁作为解决争议的方式，因为仲裁裁决可以通过《纽约公约》得以承认与执行，而目前在世界上并没有与《纽约公约》类似的公约来确保判决和调解书的执行。但是，随着国际商事法庭的建立和《新加坡公约》的通过，国际上就可以产生能够和国际商事仲裁进行有力竞争的争议解决方式：如果当事人觉得国际仲裁的成本太高，可以在协议中约定向国际商事法庭寻求争议解决，比如中国国际商事法庭或者新加坡国际商事法庭；如果当事人觉得诉讼的成本过高，也可以通过仲裁的方式解决争议。这样仲裁和诉讼之间就可以形成相互的竞争。现在公认国际仲裁的成本很高，通过引入国际商事法庭的竞争，这将会降低“一带一路”沿线的国际商事争议解决的成本，最终让平常商人受益。

There is one other benefit of the rise of international commercial courts.  There will inevitably be a degree of competition among international commercial courts themselves. I suggest that this competition would help to make courts more responsive to the needs of the public. Judiciaries and judges along the Belt and Road will have to raise their game. If courts are not responsive to the needs of the public, the public will not go to you.

另外，这还可以促进世界上不同商事法庭之间的竞争。我认为这可以促进各国际商事法庭努力提高自己的水平，更好地回应当事人的诉求。司法人员和法官们将提高他们的竞争力。如果他们对当事人的诉求并没有能够很好的回应，当事人就会选择去别的商事法庭。

It will also lead to greater comity or harmony among different jurisdictions. There will be a benefit to recognizing and enforcing each other’s judgments. If you don’t recognize another jurisdiction’s judgments, then it will not recognize yours. Judgments of your international commercial court would have no effect, unless you recognize the judgments of other jurisdictions, subject only to conditions of indirect jurisdiction, due process and public policy. So, I suggest, international commercial courts are not only relevant, but that they are also special. They respond to the needs of the public at large around the world. They will conceivably lead to a lowering of the cost of dispute resolution generally, along the Belt and Road and also, hopefully, to commercial harmony around the world. 

同时，这还能促进不同司法区域之间的礼让与和谐，促进相互之间承认和执行法院的判决。如果一国不承认另一国的国际商事法庭判决，另外一个国家也不会承认该国的国际商事法庭的判决，这种情况下，该国国际商事法庭的作用就不能得到有效的发挥。因此，这需要该国承认他国的判决，例外情况仅包括间接管辖权、正当程序和公共政策问题。因此，我认为国际商事法庭的设立不仅是符合当前形势的，而且它们是特别的。它们能够广泛回应不同国家和当事人的诉求，降低国际商事争议解决的成本。我希望国际商事法庭不仅在“一带一路”沿线国家发挥作用，也能在全世界范围内起到推动和促进争议解决的作用。

Thank you very much!

谢谢大家！

Roundtable Discussion

圆桌讨论

Anselmo Reyes：

芮安牟:

Thank you very much. I will answer the specific question asked to me by Professor Wang in a moment. Let me respond to some of the topics that were raised by the others peakers just now.

非常感谢。我首先对单教授和刘庭长讨论的两个问题进行回复，待会儿再对王教授刚刚向我提的问题进行针对性回复。

First, capacity-building and the need for capacity-building. Here, I fully endorse what Professor Wang, Professor Shan, and Judge Liu have said about the need for capacity-building. Where I perhaps differ with Professor Wang (possibly also with Professor Shan), but where I agree with Judge Liu, is that I believe Professor Wang has underestimated the ability of Chinese law students, of Chinese lawyers and of Chinese judges, to adapt to this very new and ground-breaking situation of the CICC. I have lectured widely at various law universities and met numerous law students in Beijing. I regularly go to Shanghai and meet law students there. I’ve talked to judges in Shenzhen. Everyone has struck me as highly intelligent, highly diligent, highly resourceful, all ready to put the time and effort needed in order to make the CICC a success. I do not think the situation is any different here in Xi’an. So, I am certain that, in a short period of time, everyone will be working towards the success of the CICC.

首先是关于国际商事争议解决能力建设方面的问题，我们非常需要进行这样的能力建设。我非常同意三位提到的中国需要提高国际商事争议解决的能力。我的想法有可能和王教授、单教授的想法不同，但是我同意刘法官的说法，王教授和单教授可能有一些低估中国学生和中国律师适应中国国际商事法庭所处的开创性环境的能力。我曾经在北京和上海很多学校做演讲，做访问教授学者，我遇到很多学生，在深圳也遇到过很多法官，我认为他们非常聪明、非常勤奋、非常有想法，也非常愿意花时间推进中国国际商事法庭的建设，我认为在西安也不会有任何不同。所以我坚信在西安，大家很快会致力于国际商事法庭的建设，促进它的成功。

Second, let me deal with the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention. Obviously, China has to decide for itself if (and when) it will accede to the Hague Convention. I can only speak from my own personal experience. When I was a Hong Kong judge, I was completely against the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention or at least its early drafts. From the point of view of a common lawyer, acceding to the Convention means giving up what I thought was the greatest doctrine in the world, forum non conveniens. Then I became Representative of the Hague Conference’s Regional Office Asia Pacific in Hong Kong. My job was to sell the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention. When I was selling the convention.  I realized I was wrong in thinking that there were problems with the convention. It seems to me now that what the convention brings is certainty. If you have a choice of court agreement, you can guarantee that a judgment arising from the designated court will be recognized and enforced elsewhere, subject to a few exceptions mirroring those in New York Convention. That certainty is very important to commercial investors. What is the situation of the Belt and Road? Who are likely to be the major commercial investors along the Belt and Road? It is likely that the major investors will be Chinese companies. They will have disputes with companies in Belt and Road countries. Let us say that the parties have designated the CICC in a choice of court clause in their agreement, as the forum to resolve any commercial disputes arising out of their contract. Assume that a Chinese investor company goes to the CICC pursuant to such clause and eventually obtains a judgment in its favor against a foreign company from the CICC. The Chinese company will seek to enforce that judgment in a relevant country along the Belt and Road. If it seeks to enforce the judgment in Singapore, no problem. What if it seeks to enforce the judgment in, perhaps, a developing or less-developed country? The courts of that country may say: “We don’t recognize your CICC judgment, because you do not recognize the judgments of our court.” So that’s the dilemma (I think) facing countries: If I want my judgments to be enforced elsewhere, I have to have put in place reciprocal arrangements with other countries, either under the ordinary law, by bilateral treaty, or through the Hague Convention, I have to have reciprocal arrangement with other countries, otherwise my international commercial court judgments will not be enforced elsewhere. It seems to me that one of the easiest ways to establish reciprocal arrangements is to become a party to the Hague Conventionon Choice of Court Agreements.

接下来我讨论一下2005年海牙《选择法院协议公约》。中国首先需要决定是否加入海牙公约，以及什么时候加入海牙公约。从我的经验来谈，我在香港高等法院担任法官的时候，非常反对加入海牙公约，也不同意公约早期的版本。我认为作为一个普通法系的国家，签署海牙公约就意味着放弃了最重要的一个法律原则，就是不方便法院原则。后来我成为了海牙司法协会亚洲地区的代表，我的工作之一就是推广这个公约。在推广海牙公约的过程当中，我发现我此前的想法错了，海牙公约能带来很大的好处。海牙公约有确定性，如果双方协议选择了法院，它能够保证指定法院作出的判决能够在其他的地方得到执行，而这个确定性对于商业投资者而言是非常重要的。我们看“一带一路”中谁是主要的投资者，很可能就是中国公司，他们可能会和“一带一路”沿线国家产生一系列商事纠纷。我们试想如果他们根据其协议中选择法院的条款到中国国际商事法庭解决争议，他们可能会得到有利于他们的判决，那之后他们就要到“一带一路”沿线的其他国家寻求该判决的承认与执行。如果他们在新加坡执行判决将不会有问题，但如果在其他一些不太发达的国家申请承认与执行，这些国家的法院很可能说我们无法承认和执行，因为中国法院没有承认和执行过我们的判决。这就是国家所遇到的困境，想要寻求判决的承认判决与执行，双方必须有互惠性的安排，有法律规定的安排，或者双边协定，或者海牙公约，否则我在新加坡国际商事法庭的判决就不会在其他国家得到执行。而我认为最简单的解决方式就是成为2005年海牙《法院选择协议公约》的缔约国。

Finally, let me answer now Professor Wang’s question, about economic circumstances in Singapore.

接下来我将回复王教授刚才提的问题，关于新加坡商事环境和商事立法情况。

Unlike China, Singapore is a small jurisdiction. If lawyers there simply were to look to Singaporeans, Singapore business or Singapore clients, there may not be enough legal work to go around. If we only deal with cases that have a Singapore connection, there will not be enough to go around for our lawyers. Consequently, the Chief Justiceof Singapore suggested that what we have to do is to bring cases into Singapore that would not normally come to Singapore. Hence, the logic of having choice of court agreements designating the SICC.

新加坡和中国不一样。新加坡是一个非常小的国家，一个非常小的司法区。如果我们的律师仅仅关注新加坡的商事活动和新加坡的投资活动，或者，如果我们仅仅关注和新加坡有关的案件，我们就不会有足够的案件。所以我们最高院的院长建议，将一些通常情况下不会由新加坡审理的案件带入新加坡审理，支持有利于新加坡国际商事法庭的法院选择协议。

Such choice of court agreements will in due course become the main source of SICC’s jurisdiction. We are saying: “If there is some case, that has no other connection with Singapore apart from a choice of court agreement designating the Singapore court as the court to resolve dispute, we are prepared to consider hearing it. Come to us. In that way, we will have more legal business.” So, for Singapore, there is an economic imperative to look outwards.

这样的法院选择协议在适当的时候可能会成为新加坡国际商事法庭案件的主要来源。所以，即使与新加坡没有联系，只要当事人协议选择了新加坡法院，我们也会审理这个案件。这样，我们才会有更多的案子。对于新加坡来说，有经济动力驱使我们向外拓展案件来源。

If I might respectfully compare China. China is a large country, so it has a large internal market. And, as a result, competition within China is also great. We hear about the adverse effects of the trade war. Here in China and also in the United States, the trade war may well be having some adverse effects. The trade war will not go away tomorrow. It may not go away for a long time. In those circumstances, it is imperative to look outwards, especially to Belt and Road countries, for further trade opportunities, for further business opportunities.  I think that is one of the key points of the logic behind the CICC may be this: “Come to us, the CICC, to resolve disputes arising out of the Belt and Road Initiative, in respect of your commercial contracts. We will deal with your cases. We will resolve your disputes in a fair, time-efficient and cost-effective manner.”

如果和中国进行对比的话，中国是一个非常大的国家，有非常大的国内市场。当然，中国国内的竞争也是非常激烈的，中美之间的贸易战对中国已经产生了影响，贸易战并不会很快结束，很可能将持续很长的一段时间。这种情况也会刺激中国向外拓展，即向“一带一路”沿线国家寻求更多的经济和市场机会。因此这可能也是中国国际商事法庭建立的一个原因，就是要鼓励“一带一路”沿线的商事争议根据当事人间商业协议的约定在中国的国际商事法庭进行解决。中国将承诺提供公正、有效并且是成本更低的解决方式.

Ultimately, I suggest that, even though Singapore and China are in different economic situations, the economic imperatives are similar. Thank you.

最后，我认为虽然新加坡和中国面临不同的经济形势，但是我们向外拓展的动力却是相似的。谢谢大家。

“跨境顾释”栏目由顾嘉律师主笔/主持，每周五与“巡回观旨”栏目交替发布。我们希望借助这个栏目，关注中国法下重大涉外法律问题，分享跨境争议解决的实务经验，介绍外国先进司法区内的最新法律发展和动态以及搭建一个中外法律界和商界的互动平台。如您有任何想法、意见、建议，欢迎点击文末留言。

向“跨境顾释”栏目投稿，欢迎发送邮件至：

[e-mail]

查看往期文章，请点击以下链接：

---