2018年6月7日，在Hardy Exploration and Production (India),Inc v. Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Civil Action No.:16-140 (RC)一案中（判决请见：阅读原文），双方就仲裁裁决的承认与执行发生争议，仲裁胜诉方在印度最高院还未做出最终裁决的情况下，向美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院请求确认仲裁裁决的效力，印度政府则提出申请请求该法院中止程序，且承认与执行相关仲裁裁决内容将与美国公共政策相违背，对此，美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院认定：驳回印度提出的中止法院程序的申请；考虑到本案请求承认与执行的仲裁裁决内容违反了美国的公共政策，同时驳回当事人承认与执行仲裁裁决的申请（“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES HEPI’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (ECF No. 1); DENIES AS MOOT HEPI’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (ECF No. 36); and DENIES AS MOOT India’s Cross-Motion for Leave to File a Response to HEPI’s Proposed Sur-Reply (ECF No. 37).”）。

 

本公众号2019年5月30日推送文章《美国法院对涉外仲裁平行诉讼问题的考量因素》，该文讨论了美国法院在分析是否准予印度方提出的中止法院程序请求时需考量地几大因素，本文将重点主要介绍美国法院在论证请求承认与执行仲裁裁决是否违反公共政策的部分。

 

一、案情介绍

 

1996年11月，就印度东南部地理区块碳氢化合物开采、开发与生产事宜，三家印度企业与印度政府签订了一份《生产合作合同》（Production Sharing Contract，以下简称“《合作合同》”）。2001年8月开始，本案原告Hardy Exploration and Production (India), Inc（以下简称“HEPI”）获得《合作合同》中100%的参与股份，在本案实体争议发生期间，HEPI仍一直持有该合同75%的参与股份。根据该《合作合同》，如果开采到原油，评核期（appraisalperiod）为2年；如果开采到天然气，则评核期为5年。

 

2006年期间，HEPI开采到碳氢化合物并认定是天然气，但主管部门印度石油与天然气部（Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas）却认定是原油，并于2009年通知HEPI由于其未按时提交商业声明（declaration of commerciality），视为放弃对相关开采地的权利。根据《合作合同》第33条仲裁条款，HEPI将双方争议提交至仲裁。其中仲裁协议第33.12条规定：除非双方另有约定，根据本条进行调解或仲裁的地点应在吉隆坡…（“The venue of conciliation or arbitration proceedings pursuant to this Article unless the parties otherwise agree, shall be Kuala Lumpur…”）。

 

2013年5月8日，仲裁地作出有利于HEPI的最终裁决，认定印度政府的行为构成违约，其作出的弃权命令被宣布无效（“order of relinquishment is declared to be null and void.”）；命令双方继续履行合同，印度向HEPI赔偿损失。

 

2013年7月，印度向德里高等法院（Delhi High Court）请求撤销上述仲裁裁决；2013年11月，HEPI向该法院请求承认与执行仲裁裁决。德里高等法院驳回印度的撤销请求，理由是由于仲裁地（seat of arbitration）在马来西亚，而不是在印度，故法院无权依据《1996年仲裁法》第34条撤销仲裁裁决（“it was because the Delhi High Court had found that the seat of arbitration had been Malaysia, rather than India, and therefore, that Indian courts did not have the power to set aside the arbitral award pursuant to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”）。

 

2016年1月，在印度国内法院审理还未完结的情况，HEPI又向美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（United States DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia，以下简称“地区法院”）提起诉讼，请求法院承认与执行仲裁裁决。针对HEPI的印度则提出抗辩，认为由于仲裁裁决执行内容违反美国公共政策，法院应当拒绝执行仲裁裁决；由于印度法院的撤销仲裁裁决诉讼程序仍在进行中，故请求法院中止本案程序（“arguing that the Court should decline to enforce the arbitral award because confirming both the specific performance and interest aspects of the Award would violate U.S. public policy. It further moved for the Court to staythese proceedings while its petition to set aside the arbitral award remains pending in India.”）。

 

2016年10月，印度向最高法院提起上诉。截止至美国地区法院作出本案裁决，印度最高法院还未作出最终判决。

 

二、美国地区法院：关于执行仲裁裁决是否违反公共政策（Public Policy）的认定

 

针对HEPI向美国地区法院提出承认与执行仲裁裁决的请求，印度提出，根据《纽约公约》第五条第（2）项第（b）款规定，本案仲裁裁决中请求承认与执行的部分违反了美国的公共政策（Public Policy）：

其一，裁决中强制履行部分不是法院在通常情况下作出的针对一主权国家位于美国境内的金钱判决，而是要求印度放弃其所有并控制的自然资源，故该部分裁决的强制执行违反了美国的公共政策（“it argues that because confirmation of the award “would not lead to the usual result this Court is used to seeing—a monetary judgment that the petitioner can then enforce against the sovereign nation’s commercial assets located within the U.S.,” but rather “would divest [India] of possession and control of its own territorial waters and natural resources,” the confirmation “would be contrary to the public policy of [the United States].”）；

其二，由于美国有明确的公共政策禁止对外国主权国家采取惩罚性措施，而裁决中的利息部分具有惩罚性赔偿的性质，故也构成对美国公共政策的违反（“It further argues against confirmation of the monetary portion of the award because “[t]he United States has clear public policy prohibiting punitive measures against foreign nations,” and therefore it cautions against confirmation of an arbitral award meant to “punish[] India for its ‘illegal acts’ and any future disobedience of its injunctive decree by ordering India to pay interest on a base amount unless and until it restores the Block to Hardy.””）。

 

针对印度根据《纽约公约》提出的违反“公共政策”抗辩，美国地区法院提出，根据判例Ministry of Def. & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011)和判例Scherk v. Alberto–CulverCo., 417 U.S. 506, 520 n.15 (1974)，《纽约公约》的宗旨以及美国加入该公约的目的在于鼓励对商事仲裁协议的承认和执行以及统一签字国在遵守仲裁协议和执行仲裁裁决的标准（“[t]he goal of the [New York] Convention, and the principal purpose underlying American adoption and implementation of it, was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatorycountries.”），故提出公共政策抗辩首先要面对的是支持确认外国仲裁裁决的这一强有力的公共政策（“Analysis of a proposed public- policy defense begins with the strong public policy favoring confirmation of foreign arbitration awards.”）。

 

根据判例Newco Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 650 F. App’x 14, 16 (D.C. Cir. 2016)、Parsons v. Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale DeL’Industrie Du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969, 974 (2dCir. 1974)、Enron Nigeria PowerHolding, Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, 844 F.3d 281, 289 (D.C. Cir. 2016)和判例United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 43 (1987)提出的观点，在拒绝或推迟执行外国仲裁裁决方面，法律给予地区法院的自由裁量权十分有限，只有在执行仲裁裁决将违反法院地国家最基本的道德和正义理念这种清楚明确的案件中才可以依赖公共政策例外，故《纽约公约》下的公共政策抗辩应当狭义解释，而且只有在仲裁裁决明显将损害公共利益、公众对法治的信心等才可适用（“Courts in this circuit have repeatedly held that “courts should rely on the public policy exception only ‘in clear-cut cases’ where ‘enforcement would violate the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.”“The public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention is to be construed narrowly and is available only where an arbitration award “tends clearly to undermine the public interest, the public confidence in the administration of the law, or security for individual rights of personal liberty or of private property.”），具体论证如下：

 

（一）仲裁裁决中强制主权国家继续履行合同的部分

 

美国地区法院认同印度提出的关于仲裁裁决强制履行部分违反了美国公共政策的主张（“the Court therefore finds that India has metits burden of demonstrating that confirmation of the specific performance portion of the award would be contrary to U.S. public policy, and therefore the Court declines to confirm this portion of the award.”）。

 

首先，法院认同印度政府方的主张，即确认本案仲裁裁决的后果是美国法院将以以往判决中更为侵略性的方式执行仲裁裁决（“First, the Court agrees with India that confirmation of the award would lead to a U.S. court attempting to enforce an even more invasive order than the one in NML Capital.”）。根据判例Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633, 647 (2d Cir.1956)，在履行无法保证，或是行使此种权力将可能导致混乱以及与其他国家当局的冲突时，作出域外禁令的权力应当谨慎行使（“The power to grant extraterritorial injunctions ‘should be exercised with great reluctance when it [would] be difficult to secure compliance . . . or when the exercise of such power is fraught with possibilities of discord and conflict with the authorities of another country’.”）。

 

其次，美国地区法院提出，美国《外国主权豁免法案》（Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act）中所规定的对外国国家的管辖权涉及的是请求赔偿性损害赔偿并可以强制性的国内方式确保原告得到此种赔偿，这表明美国通过规定对外国国家的特定形式救济来实现其尊重外国主权国家的公共政策承诺（“the Court is persuaded that the FSIA’s contemplation of jurisdiction over foreign countries in suits seeking compensatory (but not punitive) damages, and allowing for specific, domestic methods of ensuring that plaintiffs receive those damages, demonstrates the United States’ public policy commitment to respecting the sovereignty of foreign nations by only holding them liable for certain forms of relief.”）。

 

最后，美国地区法院还提出，根据判例Newco Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 650 F. App’x 14, 16 (D.C. Cir. 2016)，虽然国际互惠原则通常并不反对确认仲裁裁决，但是如果确认本案中的仲裁裁决将导致恶性循环，外国法院将对美国在自己境内或维护自己领土而采取的行为持否定意见（“while the doctrine ofinternational comity does not generally counsel against the confirmation of arbitral awards, see Newco Ltd., 650 Fed. Appx. at 16 (citing Belize Soc. Dev.,668 F.3d at 727), as India has indicated, confirmation of this award would “raise the specter of the opposite situation coming to pass.”）。根据判例Gonzalez & GonzalezBonds & Ins. Agency、Inc. v. Dep’t Homeland Security, 490 F.3d 940, 943 (Fed. Cir. 2007)、Robbins v. U.S. Bureau ofLand Mgt., 438 F.3d 1074, 1082 (10th Cir. 2006)、Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1982)以及判例Suburban Mortg. Assocs.,Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 480 F.3d 1116, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2007)，由于美国政府在美国法院并未放弃对合同案件强制履行的主权豁免权利，外国法院可以指令要求美国政府强制履行合同义务的这种情况显然与美国的公共政策格格不入（“Given that the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity in its own courts against specific performance in contract cases, it would defy comprehension that it would be incompliance with U.S. public policy to create a situation in which a foreign court could order the U.S. to specifically perform its portion of a contract.”）。

 

综合上述理由，美国地区法院得出结论，仲裁裁决中强制主权国家继续履行合同的部分违反了美国的公共政策（“For all of these reasons, the Court finds that enforcement of the specific performance portion of the arbitral award would violate United States public policy.”），法院决定予以拒绝该部分裁决的承认与执行。

 

（二）仲裁裁决中利息部分

 

美国地区法院认为，虽然仲裁认定该部分裁决属于补偿性利息而非惩罚性利息，但由于该部分裁决的内容与上述强制履行内容不可分割，承认该部分裁决也将侵犯到印度的国家主权，故该部分内容也违反了美国公共政策（“In this case, the practical effect of confirming the Tribunal’s award of interest would be to coerce a foreign state into complying with a non-existent order from this Court, a non-existent order which, as explained above, would be a severe affront to India’s sovereignty and would violate U.S. public policy.”），决定予以拒绝承认与执行。

 

综合上述，由于HEPI请求承认与执行的仲裁裁决部分都构成对美国公共政策的违反，故美国地区法院最终决定拒绝其承认与执行仲裁裁决的请求。

 

三、评析

 

根据《纽约公约》第五条第（2）项第（b）款规定，“倘声请承认及执行地所在国之主管机关认定承认或执行裁决有违该国公共政策者，亦得拒不承认及执行仲裁裁决，”即仲裁当事人依据该条向审理法院提出公共政策抗辩。对此，美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院也提出，《纽约公约》第五条“公共政策抗辩”事实上在认定门槛上较高，仅在执行仲裁裁决将违反法院地国家最基本的道德和正义理念这种清楚明确的案件中才可以依赖公共政策例外（“Courts in this circuit have repeatedly held that “courts should rely on the public policy exception only‘ in clear-cut cases’ where ‘enforcement would violate the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.”）。

 

此外，本案还涉及到一个很重要的问题，即如果一方当事人在仲裁裁决承认与执行案件中提出有关国家主权豁免（sovereign immunities）的公共政策抗辩（public policy defense），审理法院应当如何在维护仲裁裁决执行与尊重一国主权之间进行权衡。在一些商事仲裁案件中，在一个主权国家作为仲裁当事一方的情况下，仲裁庭作出的仲裁裁决中难免会涉及到一国国家主权问题，审理法院该如何认定相关部分是否构成公共政策例外，也是一个得到我们关注的一个问题

阅读原文：https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv0140-42