简析多层次争端解决条款的性质与实施

Abstract
摘要
In international commercial field nowadays, it is inevitable to deal with disputes arising out of commercial contracts. In addition to a traditional way of setting dispute by litigation, arbitration is becoming popular. Besides, multi-tiered dispute resolution term is more and more likely to be included in international commercial contracts, due to the unique characteristics of different alternative dispute resolutions. The multi-tiered dispute resolution term can be considered as a collective expression of ADRs and therefore has some inherent advantages. However, problems also arise due to this aggregation.
在当今争议解决领域，商事合同出现争议难以避免。除了传统的诉讼方式外，仲裁也变得越来越流行。此外，由于不同的替代争议解决方案（ADR）具有的独特特点，多层争议解决条款越来越有可能被纳入国际商业合同中。多层纠纷解决条款可以看作是替代性争议解决方式的集合表示，因此具有一些固有的优势。然而，这种多种争议解决方式的聚合也可能带来问题。
This paper will give a brief analysis on the nature and performance of multi-tiered dispute resolution term by case study method and comparative method. For example, a brief summary and comparison of the nature of multi-tiered dispute resolution term in major jurisdictions will be shown. Comparison will also be made with some ADRs and arbitration in order to learn from the latter’s experiences to form more operative and clear ADR rules.
本文基于案例研究方法和比较方法，对多层争议解决条款的性质和实施进行了简要分析。例如，将对典型法域下多层争议解决条款的性质进行简要的总结和比较。此外，一些ADR和仲裁进行比较，以便从后者的经验中学习，从而得出更有效和更明确的ADR规则。
In the first section, I summarize the definition and development of ADR mechanism and multi-tiered dispute resolution. In section 2, I put forward some elements the parties should consider when drafting the term as well as different theories on the nature of the term in different jurisdictions and how it influences the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals. In the last section, based on the analysis made above, some suggestion will be given to help the parties to enter into a more enforceable multi-tiered dispute resolution term.
第一部分总结了ADR和多层纠纷解决的定义和发展。第二部分提出了，在此类条款的起草阶段，当事人应考虑的一些要素，以及在典型法域下对其性质的不同理论和它如何影响仲裁庭的权限。在最后一节中，基于上述分析，笔者将提出一些建议，以帮助各方缔结一个更具有执行力的多层争端解决条款。
Introduction
一、介绍
Since the multi-tiered dispute resolution term is developed on the basis of ADR mechanism, before we determine the definition of this clause, we should first learn that what are ADRs and how they work.
由于多层次争端解决条款是建立于ADR之上的，所以我们在给多层次争端解决条款下定义前，要了解什么是ADR以及其如何运作。
A.Definition and content of alternative dispute resolution
替代性争议解决方式的定义和内容
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), also known as non-litigation dispute resolution, was originated in the US and emerged in 1970s. Featuring with a time and cost-efficient characteristic comparing to traditional court proceeding, ADRs becomes popular in 1990s in Europe and gradually be considered as a preferential choice of resolving commercial disputes in international business community. There are several ADRs which are favored by the parties.
替代性争端解决方式，又叫非诉讼纠纷解决方式，起源于美国并发展于上世纪七十年代。与传统的法庭诉讼相比，ADR具有时间短、成本低的特点，逐渐在上世纪九十年代的欧洲流行起来，并逐渐被认为是国际商界解决商业纠纷的优先选择。有几个ADR是受到商事主体青睐的。
1.Negotiation 协商
Negotiation is referred as a process where the parties settle their dispute without the intervention of a third party. Employers or officers may represent their companies and meet together to reach a resolution of the dispute. This amicable dispute resolution is considered as the least disruptive and least expensive method of settling disputes among commercial entities. However, it has drawbacks in the nature of itself since the commence of the negotiation is completely based on the parties’ common consent and the negotiated agreement does not have binding force, the commence of the negotiation process will be very difficult when one party change its mind and the execution of the settlement agreement is of great uncertainty.
协商是指当事人在没有第三方干预的情况下解决争端的过程。雇主或高级管理人员可以代表他们的公司，会面以解决争端。这种友好的争端解决被认为是解决商业实体之间纠纷的破坏性最低和成本最低的方法。但是，它在本质上存在缺陷，因为谈判的开始是完全基于双方共同同意的，即谈判协议不是强制性的，当一方改变主意时，不仅协商的开始就会变得十分困难，协商结果的履行也会具有强烈的不确定性。
2.Mediation 调解
Comparing to negotiation, mediation introduces a neutral third party to assist the parties in dispute to come up with resolutions. Its confidentiality and flexibility are the main traits attracting the commercial entities. However, similar to the result of negotiation, the decision that the mediator made is not binding either. In other words, the party who’s absent from the mediation resolution may end up with only assuming the liability of breach under the contract law whatever the counterparty claims.
与谈判相比，调解包含了中立的第三方，由其协助争议方提出解决方案。调解的保密性和灵活性是吸引商事主体的重要特点。但是，与协商解决争议这一ADR的后果类似，调解人作出的决定同样没有强制执行力。也就是说，缺席调解决议的当事人可能只需承担对方主张的合同法下的违约责任。
The parties to a contract can choose rules applicable to their mediation process, such as the rules formulated by International Chamber of Commerce(ICC), London Court of International Arbitration(LCIA) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL). These rules are intended to assist the parties to enter into a mediation agreement more operatively in order to settle the dispute more effectively.
缔约方可以选择适用于其调解过程的规则，如国际商会（ICC）、伦敦国际仲裁法院（LCIA）和联合国国际贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）制定的规则。这些规则旨在帮助各方更有效地缔结调解协议，以便更有效地解决争端。
3.Expert’s Decision 专家裁定
Like arbitration, an Expert’s Decision also contains a third party chosen by the disputing the parties and the expert decision is binding. This kind of ADR is often seen in complex construction and engineering contracts due to the professional feature of the disputes arising out of these contracts.
与仲裁一样，专家裁定也包含争议方选择的第三方，专家裁决具有约束力。这种ADR经常出现在复杂的建筑和工程合同中，因为这些合同中产生的纠纷具有专业特征。
4.Arbitration 仲裁
Arbitration is a private system of adjudication which offers the parties broad discretion to agree on some procedural and substantive matters when submitting the disputes for arbitration. The certainty of enforceability of arbitration is more convincible than other ADRs because the arbitration system consisting of international conventions, national arbitration laws and arbitration rules from institutional arbitration centers provide grounds for the recognition and enforcement of both the arbitration agreements and the arbitration awards.
仲裁是一种私人的裁决制度，它为当事人在将其争议提交仲裁时，就一些程序和实质性事项提供了广泛的自由裁量权。仲裁可执行性的确定性比其他ADR更令人信服，因为由国际公约、国家仲裁法和机构仲裁中心的仲裁规则组成的仲裁制度为仲裁协议和裁决的承认、执行提供了理由。
B.Definition and development of multi-tiered dispute resolution term
多层争议解决条款的定义与发展
Multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism is a combination of several ADRs. It is more common to see this kind of term in some complex contracts like international construction and engineering contracts. Since this kind of contract usually has a long term in nature and disputes may occur at any stage of performing the contract, a multi-tiered dispute resolution term can provide one or more appropriate procedure for the parties to settle any particular dispute in a most effective way. In general, multi-tiered dispute resolution term refers to a term that contains several dispute resolutions like negotiation, mediation, expert’ s decision, arbitration, and so forth. The parties may agree on applying these techniques in order at different stage of disputes resolution. Generally speaking, the parties would start with negotiation between their high-ranking officers or mediation with the intervention of a neutral third-party. The last step would usually be arbitration, if the parties were unable to resolve preliminarily. Therefore, this term is also be called ‘escalation clauses’,‘process clauses for negotiation-mediation-arbitration’ or ‘pre-arbitration procedural requirements’, as the formality and intensity are increasing.
多层纠纷解决机制是几种ADR的结合。这种条款在国际建设工程施工合同中较为常见，因为这些合同具有长期性质，且争议可能发生在履行合同的任何阶段，因此多层争议解决条款可以为当事人提供一个或多个适当的程序，以最有效的方式解决特定的争议。一般来说，多层争议解决条款是指包含协商、调解、专家裁定、仲裁等多种争议解决方案的条款。双方可以达成合意将这些技术依次适用于解决争端的不同阶段。一般来说，商事主体将从其高级管理人员之间的谈判或通过共同第三方干预的调解开始。通常，如果双方无法在初步层面解决，最后一步将是仲裁。因此，随着正式性和强度的增加，该条款也被称为“升级条款”、“协商-调解-仲裁的步骤条款”或“仲裁前程序要求”。
The advantage of concluding escalation clauses are obvious because the confidentiality, flexibility, and efficiency they may secure comparing with litigation. In addition, since the most appropriate technique is agreed by the parties for resolving a specific dispute, it is a targeted way to settle the dispute while significantly saving time and costs. However, problems still may arise in drafting, performance, and enforcement stage of these escalation clauses. For example, are there any rules provided for the parties to refer, what is the legal consequence when a party breaches any of such clauses and what is the relation between arbitration and other ADRs in the clauses. These questions will be discussed below.
达成升级条款的优势是显而易见的，因为其相较于诉讼具有保密性、灵活性和效率性。此外，如果双方达成了合意采用最合适的ADR技术来解决争议，则争议能够得到由针对性的解决，时间成本和经济成本也会大大降低。然而，在起草、执行和执行升级条款时仍会产生问题。例如，是否有任何规则供当事人参考，当事人违反该条款时的法律后果是什么，以及替代性争议解决条款中仲裁与其他ADR之间的关系是什么。下面将讨论这些问题。
Nature of multi-tiered dispute resolution term
二、多层次争议解决条款的性质
A.Drafting of multi-tiered dispute resolution term
多层纠纷解决条款的起草
We have already known that ambiguous arbitration clauses will lead to many problems at the commencement or enforcement stages of the arbitration, unclear wording in escalation clauses will also cause difficulties in making decision, for example, whether the parties have intention to be bound by these ADR clauses, or whether there is procedure to be followed when the parties shrift from one ADR to another.
我们已经知道，模棱两可的仲裁条款会导致在仲裁开始或执行阶段出现许多问题，同样，措辞不明的多层次争议解决条款也会导致争议解决的困难重重，例如，当事人是否有受这些ADR条款约束的意思表示，或者当当事人从一个ADR转变到另一个ADR时是否有特定得到程序需要遵守。
International Center of Dispute Resolution (ICDR) of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) presents a demonstrative term in drafting the escalation clauses. LCIA also released recommended clauses for the combination of mediation-arbitration resolutions. We can find that under these recommended clauses, the parties “shall” first resort to negotiation or mediation. If they cannot reach a settlement, they may then refer the dispute to a binding and final arbitration. By using the word “shall” rather than “may”, the parties show their common intention to be bound by this multi-tiered dispute resolution term, which oblige the parties to make first attempts to resolve the dispute by ADRs. Using clear and accurate wording may help avoid conflicts arising out of this clause itself, which would also guarantee the efficiency of solving the substantive problem.
美国仲裁协会（AAA）的国际争端解决中心（ICDR）为起草升级条款提供了一个示范条款。LCIA也发布了一项关于调解-仲裁决议结合的建议条款。我们可以发现，根据这些建议的条款，双方“应”首先将其争议提交谈判或调解。如果他们不能达成和解，他们就可以进行有约束力的最终仲裁。通过使用“应”而不是“可能”一词，双方表明了他们受此多层争议解决条款约束的共同意图，该条款规定双方有义务首先尝试通过ADR解决问题。使用清晰、准确的词语可以避免这一条款本身产生的冲突，从而确保解决实质性问题的效率。
If the parties are using the word ‘may’, it can be considered that the parties have the right to settle the dispute by ADRs, which is more of an option but an obligation. According to the ICC Case No.10256, by using the word ‘may’, it is permissive but not mandatory for the parties to refer their dispute to the mentioned resolutions. Therefore, the parties have broad discretion to decide whether to conduct in strict compliance with the escalation proceedings, or whether they are already so ‘alienated’ that it is preferable for the dispute to be taken directly before an arbitration tribunal.
如果双方使用了“可能”一词，可以认为双方都有权通过ADR解决争议。这只是一种选择，而不是一种义务。根据国际商会第10256号案件，当使用“可能”一词时，当事人将其争议提交给其选择的争议解决方式是允许的，但不是强制性的。因此，双方有广泛的自由裁量权来决定是否严格按照升级程序进行，或者他们是否已经达到一定的“疏远”程度从而放弃提及的ADR，将争议直接提交仲裁庭是更好的选择。
Therefore, since the parties enter into escalation clauses in their contract, regardless of whether the wording is clear or not, it indicates that they are willing to solve problems in amicable and efficient way. To achieve this goal, drafting in precise wording including the time limit and using “the parties shall”, as well as providing mandatory conditions precedent for commencing the arbitration, would help the parties to express their actual intention accurately. However, in practice, even with accurate draft showing the parties’ intention to involve in ADRs before arbitration or litigation, in different jurisdictions we still have different views on the enforceability of such term.
因此，鉴于双方在合同中订立了升级条款，无论措辞是否明确，都表明他们愿意以友好有效的方式解决问题。为实现这一目标，起草精确的表达，包括每个程序的时限，并使用“当事人应”，为开始仲裁提供强制性的先决条件，以帮助当事人准确地表达其愿意以友好的前置程序解决争议的实际意图。然而，在实践中，即使合同草案表明双方有在仲裁或诉讼前参与ADR的意图，在不同的司法管辖区下，我们对该条款的可执行性仍有不同的看法。
B.Nature of multi-tiered dispute resolution term and its influence on jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals or domestic courts
多层争议解决条款的性质及其对仲裁庭或国内法院管辖权的影响
In practice of different jurisdictions, people have inconsistent views on the nature of multi-tiered dispute resolution term. Questions related to the nature of such term will always rise: may an arbitration tribunal govern when one party directly submits the dispute to arbitration without engaging in the ADRs mentioned in their mandatory clauses? Is there any remedy for the observant party? The answer will be different in different jurisdictions.
在不同法域的实践中，人们对多层争议解决条款的性质的看法并不一致。与该条款的性质有关的问题总是会出现：当一方没有参与强制性的ADR程序而直接将争议提交仲裁的，仲裁庭是否有权限管辖此争议？守约一方是否有救济方式？答案将因法域的不同而有所不同。
1.The breach of the ADR clauses only concerns substantive part of the matter 违反ADR条款只涉及实体问题
As a representative jurisdiction holding this view, the Supreme Court of Zurich in Switzerland concludes that, the clause of negotiation or consultation is of purely substantive nature and the breach of one party will lead to damage claim arise by the counter-party according to the substantive law, but not procedurally interfere the commencement of arbitration. Thus, even if one party does not abide by such clause or both parties completely ignore it, the court of the country still have jurisdiction over this dispute despite the existence of such clause.
作为持有此观点的具有代表性的管辖权范围，瑞士苏黎世州最高法院总结到，磋商或协商条款具有纯粹的实体性质，一方的违反行为将可能导致对方根据实体法提出损害赔偿，但在程序上不妨碍仲裁的开始。因此，即使一方没有履行这一ADR条款或双方完全无视这一条款，尽管存在这此条款，国家法院对这一争端仍有管辖权。
2.The breach of the ADR clauses only concerns procedural part of the matter 违反ADR条款只涉及程序问题
In some jurisdictions, the authorities believe that such escalation clauses are a condition precedent to initiate an arbitration. According to New York Court of Appeal, given the contract contained explicit language evincing the parties’ intention, the decision of the mediator (an architect in this case) is a condition precedent to arbitration. Failing to satisfy such condition grants the permanent stay of arbitration. Also, a decision of the German Federal Supreme Court in 1998 stated that under such clause in which the parties had agreed to make attempts to resolve disputes by resolution negotiations before the initiation of court proceedings, claims brought before the courts by any party would be inadmissible if the settlement negotiations had not been commenced and completed. The court confirmed that, if the parties agreed on a mandatory pre-litigation clause, the parties were obliged to co-operate in carrying out the settlement negotiations.
在某些司法管辖区，当局认为，这种升级条款是启动仲裁的先决条件。根据纽约上诉法院的说法，合同包含明确的语言，表明双方意图，调解员（本案中的建筑师）的决定是仲裁的先决条件。如果不满足这一条件，就可以永久中止仲裁。此外，德国联邦最高法院1998年的一项决定指出，根据这一条款，当事各方同意在法院诉讼开始之前试图通过解决谈判来解决争端。如果和解谈判还没有开始和完成，任何当事方向法院提出的赔偿要求都将不予受理。法院确认，如果双方就强制性的诉讼前条款达成协议，双方就有义务合作进行和解谈判。
The writer believes that, from the perspective of the parties in dispute, it is more reasonable that they are willing to be bound by the pre-arbitration clauses. First, once they enter into such escalation clauses which include several ADRs, we can firmly assume that the parties have the intention to solve the problems in amicable ways with time and cost efficiency. Otherwise, there is no need to include such clauses in the body of contract. Second, taking pre-arbitration clauses as contractual obligations of the parties would be detrimental to the function of the subsequent of the procedure for settlement of the commercial dispute. For example, if the pre-arbitration clauses are merely of an obligation nature and the observant party may only claim for damage under the contract law, the other party or even the court would be very likely to deny or even ignore such clauses, which would be a breach of the autonomy of the parties. In addition, claiming damage under the contract law as a remedy for the observant party is not sufficient, since its real intention is to apply ADRs to resolve the dispute. Scholars like Gary Born however points out that, treating those pre-arbitration clauses as conditions precedent bars the parties’ access to the arbitral proceedings and imposes inappropriate costs and delay in the entire dispute resolution process. Under such provision, the parties will risk in being prevented from pursuing presumptively reasonable claims and obtaining presumptively justified relief in the parties’ agreed forum for dispute resolution.
笔者认为，从争议各方的角度来看，商事主体愿意受到仲裁前条款的约束更为合理。首先，一旦他们达成了包含多个ADR的升级条款，我们可以坚定地假设双方有意降低时间和成本效率，以友好的方式解决问题。否则，无需在其主合同中起草此类条款。第二，将仲裁前条款作为当事人的合同义务，会损害后续程序解决商业纠纷的功能。例如，如果仲裁前条款仅仅是一种义务性质，而遵守规定的一方只能根据合同法要求违约赔偿，另一方甚至法院很可能会否认甚至忽略这一条款，这将违反一方的自主权。此外，合同法下的违约责任作为对遵守方的救济是不够的，因为它的真正意图是涉及适用ADR解决争议。然而，像Gary Born这样的学者指出，将这些仲裁前条款视为先决条件，禁止进入仲裁程序，并在整个争议解决程序中施加不适当的成本和拖延。根据这一规定，当事各方将有可能无法在双方商定的争议解决论坛上寻求推定合理的索赔，并获得推定合理的救济。
C.The parties’ performance of multi-tiered dispute resolution term
当事人对多层争议解决条款的履行
In practice, the plaintiff usually raise the claim that the defendant did not perform, or did not fully perform the obligation under such term to prevent the initiation of next tier of dispute resolution proceedings, or to challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal. Therefore, to set a criterion to assess the parties’ performance is crucial.
在实践中，原告通常会主张被告没有履行或没有完全履行该条款下的义务，以阻止启动下一个争议解决程序，或拒绝仲裁庭的管辖。因此，制定一个评估当事人是否完全履行了某争端解决条款的标准是至关重要的。
1.Good faith criteria 诚信标准
Generally speaking, all the ADRs including arbitration require the parties to participate in that dispute resolution proceedings in good faith, which is also a principle under the contract laws. It is obvious that good faith is an extensive concept that is hard to apply directly to practice, and certain specific interpretations or indications are required. In ICC Case No. 6276, the parties have a three-tiered dispute resolution agreement(negotiation-expert decision-arbitration) that contains clear and strict modalities strictly binging both parties. In this case, the tribunal mentioned that, it is true that there is no objective and absolute criteria to determine the means of amicable settlement have been exhausted. However it was later found by the tribunal that there are sufficient indications showing that the claimant made genuine efforts in the first instance court, namely, the prerequisite of seeking amicable settlement is satisfied and the claimant are entitled to move to the next stage of the procedure. We therefore can conclude that, the criteria of good faith should be assessed on a case by case basis according to the facts of the case. We can find another example in ICC Case 9977, in which the arbitrator confirmed that, it is more importance that the parties show their good faith and real intention to reach a settlement by amicable ways by their acts, rather than strictly meet the criteria of every requirement in their agreement. In this case, the defendant argued that its counterparty designated its legal representative to present at the dispute resolution meeting, but not its senior management representative, which is not compliant with their dispute resolution clauses. The defendant’s objection was dismissed, for the reason of its counterparty is considered as actually performed its obligation in good faith in the first tier of the procedure, despite the different representative it designated. Another reason is that the defendant missed the opportunity of objection to the qualification of the corporate representative during the negotiation process which is not compliant with what has been agreed in the clauses, it is not persuasive to raise this objection after completion of the negotiation process.
一般来说，包括仲裁在内的所有ADR都要求双方诚信、善意地参与争议解决程序，这也是合同法下的一项原则。很明显，诚信是一个广泛的概念，很难直接应用于实践，需要一些具体的解释或指示。在国际商会第6276号案件中，双方有一个三层争端解决协议（谈判-专家决定-仲裁），其中包含明确和严格的模式以严格约束双方。在本案中，法庭提到，确实没有任何客观和绝对的标准来宣布友好解决的手段已经用尽。法庭后来发现，有充分的迹象表明，索赔人在一级法院作出了真正的努力，即寻求友好解决争议的先决条件得到满足，索赔人有权进入下一个程序。因此，我们可以得出结论，诚信执行的标准应该根据事实逐案进行评估。我们可以在ICC案例第9977号中找到另一个例子。仲裁员确认到，双方能够通过其行为表明其以友好的方式达成和解的诚实和真实的意图更为重要，而需要达到严格遵守其协议中的所有要求的标准。在本案中，被告辩称，其交易对手指定了其法定代表参加争议解决程序，但没有指定其高级管理代表，这与他们的争议解决条款不相符。被告的异议被驳回，因为其交易对手被认为在第一级程序中实际善意地履行了其义务，尽管其指定的代表人不同。另一个原因是，被告在谈判过程中错失了反对对方公司代表人实际与条款不相符的情况的机会，在谈判过程之后提出的此主张不具有说服力。
2.Prospect of failure to reach a settlement in the previous tier of dispute resolution procedure 在前级争议解决程序中没有达成和解的前景
In some circumstances, it is already not possible for the parties to reach a settlement in a friendly way. It is necessary or even urgent to submit the dispute to the arbitration tribunal or the court. Is it still obliged for the parties to stay in the pre-arbitration or pre-litigation proceedings? Should they express their consent to waive such obligation or can any of the party proceed with the arbitration or litigation unilaterally?
在某些情况下，当事各方已经不可能以友好的方式达成和解，此时有必要甚至敦促其将争端提交仲裁庭或国内法院。当事人是否仍有义务留在仲裁前或诉讼前的程序中？他们是否表示同意放弃该义务，或者任何一方是否可以向仲裁庭或法院单方面提起诉讼？
In the Hurst v Leeming Case, the judge upheld the defendant’s argument, he accepted that a party may refuse to proceed with mediation since there is no real prospect of success and this party would not be punished. Even though this is an exceptional circumstance, in the writer’s opinion, it is rational to skip the premised tiers of dispute resolutions if there is absolutely no possibility to solve the problems by the parties themselves, and to reduce the waste of time and costs on it. However, as mentioned above, the parties’ good faith and positive attitude should at least be indicated through their acts, rather than decline without even trying, which could be considered as a breach of obligation.
在Hurst v Leeming一案中，法官支持了被告的观点，他承认一方当事人可以拒绝进行调解，因为没有此时调解真正的成功前景，该方当事人也不会因拒绝进行调解而受到惩罚。在笔者看来这是一种例外情况，如果当事人完全不可能自行解决问题，那么跳过争端解决程序的前提层，并减少时间和经济成本是合理的。但是，如上所述，当事人的诚实和积极的态度至少应该通过他们的行为来表现出来，而不是从一开始就拒绝，这可以被视为违反义务。
Suggestions on entering into a multi-tiered dispute resolution term
三、关于缔结多层争议解决条款的建议
As mentioned above, in most jurisdictions, the multi-tiered dispute resolution term is valid or enforceable only when certain conditions are met. Therefore, based on the analysis on and the comparison with arbitration clauses, the writer provides the followings suggestion for entering into more operative escalation clauses.
如上所述，在大多数司法管辖区内，多层争议解决条款只有在满足某些条件的情况下才有效或可强制执行。因此，在和仲裁条款分析及比较的基础上，下述提出了更有效的条款升级建议。
A.Time to conclude multi-tiered dispute resolution term
缔结多层级争端解决条款的时间点
Compared with the arbitration clause, the escalation clauses can also be included in the body of contract, or be entered into separately after the arising of a dispute. In addition, the separability of such term is required to be interpreted in the same way as that of the arbitration clauses. Therefore, the parties can enter into such term based on their autonomy even after the arising of a dispute.
与仲裁条款相比，升级条款可以包括在主合同中，也可以在争议发生后单独订立。此外，该条款的可分性需要与仲裁条款一样加以解释。因此，即使在存在争议之后，当事人也可以根据自己的自主权达成这一条款。
B.Wording of such term
该条款的措辞
1.Using ‘shall’ rather than ‘may’ to obligate the parties 使用“应”而不是“可能”来为双方创造某些义务
As discussed in Section 2, the parties who used ‘shall refer’ rather than ‘may refer’ have more possibility of successfully initiate the ADR proceeding as they want under most jurisdictions. Avoiding ambiguous wording on one hand establishes obligation between the parties which refers their will of settling problems through amicable ways, on the other hand, it prevents the circumstances that this clause itself becoming a dispute which may reduce the efficiency.
如第2节所述，在大多数司法管辖区内，使用“应参考”而不是“可能参考”的当事人在更大的可能性成功启动ADR程序。一方面避免含糊的措辞，规定双方之间有通过友好方式解决问题的意愿，另一方面，可以防止该条款本身成为降低效率的争议。
2.Setting more specific procedural rules to define the criteria of the parties’ performance 设置更具体的程序规则来定义各方的履行的程度
For example, the parties may agree that, a mutual consent in a written document exchanged indicates the initiation of an ADR proceeding and if they cannot reach a resolution agreed time line, it is appropriate to skip the current ADR proceeding and move to the next tier of ADR proceeding. Also, how many meetings should be held and who should attend these meetings could be taking into account, rather than simply describing these conditions in ‘good faith’ manner.
例如，双方可以约定，在互相交换的书面文件中的合意表明了ADR程序的启动；如果他们不能在约定的时间限制内适用某一解决机制达成解决方案，则越过本ADR进行到下体格ADR程序是合适的。此外，应该考虑到应该召开多少次会议以及谁应该参加这些会议，而不是简单地以“善意”的方式来描述这些条件。
3.Specifying the scope of matters applying amicable dispute resolution michanism 明确可适用友好争端解决机制的事项范围
Similar to the arbitrability in arbitration, the parties should be aware that the matters contemplated in their agreement are negotiable or may be mediated. Otherwise, the enforceability cannot be guaranteed when such agreement is contrary to the mandatory rules in the jurisdiction concerned. In addition, it is better for the parties to ensure that the scope of the disputes subject to the aforesaid ADRs is the same as that subject to arbitration. It may prevent the situation that some problems cannot be discussed by the parties friendly but be submitted directly before the arbitration panel or the court, which is contrary to the parties’ intention for entering into such amicable dispute settlement clauses.
与仲裁中的可仲裁性类似，当事人应知道他们在协议中达成的事项是可协商的或可调解的。否则，当该协议违反有关管辖范围内的强制性规则时，其可执行性不能保证。此外，双方最好确保受上述ADR处理的争议范围与需要仲裁的争议范围相同。它防止了一些问题不能被双方友好地讨论，而直接提交给仲裁小组或法院，这会违反了双方达成该友好的争议解决条款的意图。
Conclusion
四、结论
It is becoming common that the parties of international commercial contracts seeking settlement through ADRs and enter into multi-tiered dispute resolution term in their contracts. As discussed above, this dispute resolution mechanism has the advantage for solving problems at different stages. It has the characteristics of amicability and efficiency, which is favored by the commercial parties. However, due to the autonomy-based nature of negotiation, mediation, or other ADRs, inaccurate draft by the parties, and various views on the nature of such term, there are difficulties in the enforceability of such escalation clauses. What’s more, the negative influence on later arbitration or litigation should not be overlooked either. In order to realize the value of such term and ultimately achieve the objects of the parties who apply it, we should suggest the parties to pay more attention in drafting such term, for example, accurate wording and precise definition of the conditions for the parties’ performance of ADR clauses should be provided in their multi-tiered dispute resolution term.
国际商事合同当事人通过ADR寻求解决，并在其主合同中订立多层争议解决条款的情况越来越普遍。如上所述，这种争端解决机制具有解决不同阶段的问题的优势。它具有友好性和效率的特点，受到商事主体的青睐。但是，由于双方协商、调解或其他ADR的自主性，双方的草案不准确，以及对该条款性质的各种看法，升级条款的执行存在困难。更重要的是，其对以后的仲裁或诉讼的负面影响更值得关注。为了实现该条款的价值，最终实现当事人适用的对象，我们应该建议当事人在起草阶段给予更多的关注，例如，在多层次争议解决条款中使用无歧义的措辞，明确定义当事人的履行ADR条款的条件。