On April 2, 2019, the Supreme People’s Court and the Hong Kong Legal Department signed, on behalf of the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR, "The Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid Of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (hereinafter “Arbitration Preservation Arrangement”). The Chief of Research Department of the Supreme People’s Court replied to questions of correspondents from the media concerning certain related matters.

2019 年4月2日，最高人民法院与香港特区政府律政司分别代表两地签署了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排》（以下简称《仲裁保全安排》），最高人民法院研究室负责人就有关情况回答了记者提问。

This is a transcending and historical arrangement. It is an “enforcement teeth-making” mutual arrangement for arbitration matters in Hong Kong involving Chinese parties and/or assets in Mainland China. In regard to the overall outline of the Arbitration Preservation Arrangement, the SPC responded below, quoted as follows (see People’s Court Daily, April 3, 2019):

这是一次跨越式的历史性安排，是给涉及内地当事人和／或资产的香港进行的仲裁案件“武装执法牙齿”的两地规则安排。关于《仲裁保全安排》的总体思路，最高院的代表回答了记者的下列提问（引用见2019年4月3日《人民法院报》）：

Question: "Can you briefly introduce the overall outline for the Arbitration Preservation Arrangement?"

问：“您能否简要介绍一下《仲裁保全安排》的总体思路？”

Answer："To commence judicial assistance between different legal jurisdictions, particularly different legal systems, within one country, differs from international judicial assistance, or judicial assistance between different districts within one same legal jurisdiction. This is an unprecedented and completely new task faced by and an expected historical mission destined for the legal professionals of the two jurisdictions as of the return of Hong Kong to China. Particularly in relation to arbitration preservations, there are apparently significant divergences in legal systems and legal languages, such as the types of preservative measures, the standards for the identification of arbitration procedures, the capacity of arbitral tribunal to make arbitration preservations, and legal provisions for arbitration preservations in support of overseas arbitration proceedings. This requires transformation of the principle and common understanding of mutual trust and mutual collaboration to provide benefit and convenience to the people, to specific and operative regulatory norms, on the basis of sticking to “one country” and respecting the divergences in the “two systems”.

In June last year, the Hong Kong Legal Department raised a draft proposal for the People’s Court in the Mainland to enforce the interim measures issued by the arbitration tribunals in Hong Kong. This proposal, if adopted, would be difficult to effectively interconnect to the legal system in the Mainland, given preservation is a judicial authority, rather than arbitral authority, in the Mainland, i.e., the arbitral tribunals in the Mainland currently do not have the authority to issue interim measures. What is fortunate is that the legal professionals in the two legal jurisdictions do not focus on the differences, do not stop on the difficulties, but seek the commonalities and choose to respect each other. They stick to the “one country” principle, make full use of the divergences of the two legal systems, and explore actively and positively a route that is available for the two jurisdictions. The overall outline for the arrangement is this: in preservation matters, the arbitral procedure in Hong Kong is dealt with the same way as arbitral procedure in the Mainland; Parties to the arbitral procedure in Hong Kong are permitted to file applications for preservations before the courts in Mainland; Likewise, parties to arbitration procedures in the Mainland are also permitted to file applications for preservative orders and other interim measures in Hong Kong before the Hong Kong courts; Applications from the parties, the review by the courts, and remedial measures available, etc. will all be dealt with according to the court procedures and rules at the place where the court assistance is requested."

    答：“在‘一国’之内、不同法域特别是不同法系间开展司法协助，既不同于国际司法协助，亦不同于同一法域内不同地区之间司法协助。这是香港回归以后两地法律人面对的史无前例的崭新课题和责无旁贷的历史使命。特别是在仲裁保全方面，两地的法律制度和法律语言存在显著差异，比如保全措施的类型、认定仲裁程序籍属的标准、仲裁庭有无作出保全措施的权能、两地对域外仲裁提供保全协助的规定等大不相同，这就需要在坚持“一国”原则、尊重“两制”差异的基础上，将互信合作、造福于民的原则共识，转化为具体的、可实际操作的制度规范。

去年6月，香港特区政府律政司曾提出方案，由内地人民法院执行香港仲裁庭作出的临时措施。但在内地，保全系司法权能，内地仲裁庭目前无作出保全措施的权能，如采用此方案，无法与内地法律制度有效衔接。令人倍感欣慰的是，两地法律人志不求易、事不避难，求同存异、彼此尊重，坚守“一国”之本、善用“两制”之利，积极主动地探索了一条可行之路。本安排的总体思路是，在保全方面，将香港仲裁程序与内地仲裁程序类似对待，允许香港仲裁程序的当事人向内地人民法院申请保全。同时，内地仲裁程序的当事人亦可向香港特区法院申请强制令以及其他临时措施。当事人申请、法院审查、当事人救济等都按照被请求方法院的法律规定和程序进行。”

While this is historical in terms of mutual cooperation and collaboration, it will definitely create precedents and other binding decisions from the Arbitration Preservation Arrangement. These precedents will need to be followed closely and new thoughts need to be created to address the future growth of arbitration in China, including Hong Kong SAR and the Mainland, if possible, along the lines of the UNCITRAL Model Law. In this posting, we will not go to the details of the Arbitration Preservation Arrangement. Please see relevant links at the end of the article.

虽然这在相互合作和协作方面具有历史意义，但它肯定会从仲裁保全安排中创造先例和其他具有约束力的决定。需要密切关注这些先例，在可能的情况下，根据《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》的规定，需要创设新的思维，解决中国（包括香港特别行政区和内地）仲裁的未来的发展问题。 在这篇文章中，我们将不详细介绍《仲裁保全安排》，请参阅文末的相关链接。

The following questions are immediately presented for discussions at this time:

1. PRC schedule for the amendment of the Arbitration Law;

2. What standards will be used in terms of arbitration preservations? Will the arbitral tribunals be equipped with the authority to make interim measures?

3. If the courts remain the judicial authority to provide interim measures, to what extent the decisions of arbitration preservations by arbitral tribunals in other jurisdictions may be enforced by the courts in China (including Hong Kong SAR and the Mainland)?

4. Would delegating/granting the arbitral tribunals the authority to issue preservative measures be more in line with the further opening up policy of the state? If so, would the amendment of the Arbitration Law be considered to grant such authority to the arbitral tribunals, given the arbitral tribunals exist for a legitimate reason to assist the busy courts to resolve commercial disputes, particularly disputes across borders?

Please stay tuned, as we discuss the possible answers to these questions in our future postings.

在此提出以下问题以供讨论：

1. 中国修订《仲裁法》的时间表；

2. 在仲裁保全方面将采用哪些标准？ 仲裁庭是否有权采取临时措施？

3. 如果法院仍然是采取临时措施的司法机关，那么其他法域的仲裁庭做出的仲裁保全决定能够在多大程度上在中国法院（包括香港特别行政区和内地）得到执行？

4. 委任/授予仲裁庭采取保全措施的权力是否更符合国家的进一步开放政策？ 如果是，鉴于仲裁庭的合法存在有助于协助繁忙的法院解决商事纠纷，特别是跨境纠纷，仲裁法的修正案是否会考虑授予仲裁庭这种权力？

请您继续关注，我们将在以后的文章中讨论这些问题的可能答案。

关于《仲裁保全安排》的相关链接：

1. 20190404仲裁早新闻：关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排

2. 内地与香港特区今日签署就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排（附全文）

3. 内地与香港《仲裁保全安排》简评