【正文】 mine a matter which was properly before him, by giving evidence as to what he did decide. …”。 上述所講的雙方會(huì)對(duì)仲裁過(guò)程中的事實(shí)有爭(zhēng)議的情況，在今天的仲裁做法下應(yīng)該會(huì)是大幅度減少。首先就是現(xiàn)在的仲裁中所有程序都是盡量以文書(shū)的方式進(jìn)行，例如是開(kāi)庭陳詞或是結(jié)案陳詞，開(kāi)庭也在國(guó)際仲裁中幾乎一定有開(kāi)庭記錄，把開(kāi)庭過(guò)程中大家所講的每一句話都記錄下來(lái)。這導(dǎo)致了對(duì)于仲裁程序中發(fā)生的事實(shí)是不會(huì)因?yàn)闆](méi)有記錄而令雙方產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議。如果是有清清楚楚的開(kāi)庭記錄而且通常在開(kāi)庭完畢的一天就已經(jīng)可以把開(kāi)庭記錄提供給雙方當(dāng)事人與仲裁庭，雙方還是對(duì)某一項(xiàng)事實(shí)的開(kāi)庭記錄有爭(zhēng)議，也沒(méi)有必要再去傳召仲裁員讓他根據(jù)記憶來(lái)對(duì)某些事實(shí)舉證，大可以在第二天的開(kāi)庭把這一點(diǎn)搞清楚。這導(dǎo)致了在今天去要求仲裁員對(duì)開(kāi)庭中發(fā)生了的事實(shí)去作為證人沒(méi)有什么必要。但沒(méi)有開(kāi)庭記錄的情況在現(xiàn)在也不是沒(méi)有，筆者（楊良宜）在以前處理案件時(shí)就有相關(guān)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。這是一個(gè)有關(guān)“鍍鋅鐵”（galvanized steel）買賣合約的爭(zhēng)議。案情是該批貨物在到達(dá)中國(guó)卸港后，根據(jù)商檢結(jié)果，被發(fā)現(xiàn)大量生銹而且被商檢認(rèn)為生銹是由于已經(jīng)生產(chǎn)后很久才會(huì)發(fā)生。換言之，懷疑賣方把一批舊貨當(dāng)新貨賣給中國(guó)買方。于是中國(guó)買方根據(jù)買賣合約開(kāi)始了香港仲裁，筆者代表中國(guó)買方并且很快雙方都委任了各自的仲裁員。中方委任的是一位有名的在香港執(zhí)業(yè)律師（是一位英國(guó)人），歐洲的賣方作為被告委任的是一位英國(guó)的教授。為了節(jié)省時(shí)間與費(fèi)用，雙方也同意不需要去委任第三位仲裁員，而僅僅由該2位仲裁員去處理程序上的問(wèn)題就已經(jīng)足夠。之后雙方法律代表和仲裁員召開(kāi)了一個(gè)面對(duì)面的“預(yù)先會(huì)議”（preliminary meeting）去商討接下去的仲裁程序如何進(jìn)行。由于只是討論程序上的問(wèn)題，所以在該預(yù)先會(huì)議上并沒(méi)有安排現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的錄音以及開(kāi)庭記錄。在預(yù)先會(huì)議中途，對(duì)方委任的仲裁員顯然并不是很熟悉仲裁，隨口就講出“這票貨物之所以會(huì)生銹顯然是因?yàn)楹酱螘r(shí)間比較長(zhǎng)”這一句對(duì)中國(guó)買方十分不利的話。當(dāng)時(shí)筆者代表的一方大吃一驚，因?yàn)殡p方只是剛開(kāi)始文書(shū)請(qǐng)求，什么證據(jù)也沒(méi)有提供，他憑什么能夠得出這樣的結(jié)論？至于爭(zhēng)議是有關(guān)鍍鋅鐵生銹以及航次時(shí)間比較長(zhǎng)，這有可能只是賣方律師在委任他的時(shí)候所作的簡(jiǎn)單案情介紹。該律師所是有一定的名氣，所以估計(jì)也不會(huì)是在委任的時(shí)候就過(guò)度的去影響他，畢竟這樣做是不專業(yè)與不道德的。于是筆者立刻就要求暫停預(yù)先會(huì)議，在與當(dāng)事人私下討論后決定要當(dāng)場(chǎng)對(duì)該仲裁員的言論提出抗議，并要求他辭職。預(yù)先會(huì)議重開(kāi)之后，在筆者提出了賣方仲裁員這一句不當(dāng)?shù)脑捴?，賣方代表律師馬上否認(rèn)聽(tīng)到過(guò)這一句話，他們文書(shū)記錄下來(lái)只是完全中性的一句“這票貨物之所以會(huì)生銹，航次時(shí)間的長(zhǎng)短也是本案的一個(gè)考慮因素”。這一來(lái)，雙方的法律代表就只能要求仲裁庭表態(tài)，畢竟賣方仲裁員有可能會(huì)有風(fēng)度的承認(rèn)他講錯(cuò)話而答應(yīng)辭職或者保證自己并沒(méi)有在開(kāi)庭審理前就作出預(yù)先的決定。原來(lái)，仲裁庭也沒(méi)有對(duì)所有的發(fā)言作出記錄，所以不存在有文書(shū)的證據(jù)。但中方委任的買方仲裁員很快就表明他聽(tīng)到的也好像是賣方律師所聽(tīng)到的一句。結(jié)果預(yù)先會(huì)議就是在這種不愉快的情況下草草結(jié)束，接下去很快就是中方委任了一位著名的大律師，試圖去把賣方委任的仲裁員趕走。但這里最大的考慮就是證據(jù)十分有問(wèn)題，估計(jì)成功機(jī)會(huì)很低。而其中與大律師的會(huì)議中大家也談到了傳召2位仲裁員出庭接受盤(pán)問(wèn)的可能性，但認(rèn)為賣方仲裁員在有了買方仲裁員撐腰的情況下，是不會(huì)去承認(rèn)他說(shuō)過(guò)這句中方聽(tīng)得十分清楚的話。至于買方仲裁員，由于他是一位著名的律師，恐怕去盤(pán)問(wèn)也不大可能問(wèn)得出什么，反而會(huì)得罪了他。所以結(jié)果就不了了之，只是在事后的仲裁程序中多次請(qǐng)求2位仲裁員要客觀根據(jù)證據(jù)去看待這個(gè)爭(zhēng)議?？上У氖牵蟹阶詈筮€是敗訴，而且就是在這一點(diǎn)。 加拿大的一個(gè)有關(guān)案件介紹根據(jù)英國(guó)普通法地位的分析，已經(jīng)介紹過(guò)的是仲裁員可以被傳召作為證人。畢竟，在很多這種申請(qǐng)中，仲裁員會(huì)提供給法院宣誓書(shū)或證人證言解釋有關(guān)的事實(shí)。既然去這樣做，就沒(méi)有理由不可以去傳召他接受盤(pán)問(wèn)?，F(xiàn)在也可以去看看其他重要普通法國(guó)家在這一方面的地位，這就是加拿大。在《Dispute Revolution Journal》第1998年5月期中就介紹了一個(gè)加拿大的仲裁的文章，作者是Norman Fera律師。案件涉及了敗訴的一方向法院申請(qǐng)要求把該裁決書(shū)撤銷，理由之一是裁決書(shū)對(duì)一個(gè)雙方從來(lái)沒(méi)有要求去處理的一個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端作出了裁決。在該案例，涉及的是雙方當(dāng)事人原來(lái)同意去開(kāi)庭處理2個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端的其中一個(gè)，并去作出中間裁決書(shū)。但結(jié)果是在開(kāi)庭后獨(dú)任仲裁員把2個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端都作出了最后的裁決。在申請(qǐng)人/原告代表律師所作出的宣誓書(shū)，有說(shuō)明在整個(gè)仲裁的開(kāi)庭程序中，仲裁員都沒(méi)有去告訴他們另一個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端也會(huì)被仲裁員作出最后的裁決。注意是該次開(kāi)庭并沒(méi)有安排開(kāi)庭記錄。而事實(shí)上，該裁決書(shū)寫(xiě)得比較不明朗與有矛盾，特別是針對(duì)仲裁員可以去裁決哪一些爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端的管轄權(quán)。在開(kāi)庭前的幾天即10月14日，被告的代表律師寫(xiě)了一封信函給受到攻擊的仲裁員，向他查問(wèn)有關(guān)的記憶。該信函雖然是注明抄本給申請(qǐng)人/原告的代表律師，但實(shí)際上隔了幾天，到了10月18日才傳真給了原告代表律師。而在同一天，仲裁員就已經(jīng)針對(duì)被告律師的信函作出了回復(fù)，說(shuō)：“My recollection is that the question of whether the hearing would be for a final or interim decision was discussed at the outset of the hearing, when I asked for clarification about the issues that were before me. At the beginning of the hearing, I expressed my uncertainty as to the issues that were actually before me。 ., whether both...[2個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端] were before me and whether the award I would make would be interim or final. We discussed this, and counsel for the parties agreed that both...[2個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端] were before me. It is my recollection that at the end of submissions, when we were gathering up the documents, we all acknowledged that the Arbitration Agreement, as originally drafted, only referred to...[第一個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端] and should also have referred to...[第二個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端]....You and...[申請(qǐng)人/原告的代表律師] attended to amending the first clause and you both initialed the change.”。申請(qǐng)人/原告的代表律師對(duì)延誤收到被告律師給仲裁員的信函很不滿，因?yàn)檫@是剝奪了他可以跟進(jìn)的機(jī)會(huì)，讓仲裁員聽(tīng)了雙方意見(jiàn)/看法才作出回應(yīng)。發(fā)展下去是被告律師傳召該獨(dú)任仲裁員作為證人并把傳票送達(dá)給他。但申請(qǐng)人/原告代表律師表示反對(duì)，在給被告律師的信函中說(shuō)：“(1) Expanding on what we stated earlier [指昨天的信函], we believe the continued involvement of the Arbitrator is improper. The Arbitrator rendered [在裁決書(shū)作出了她的決定] and reasons for decision as set out in the Arbitration Award. The appeal and review are based on that Award and the record. It is inappropriate to further attempt to involve the Arbitrator as this could lead to the perception that the Arbitrator...is intent on upholding that particular Award or is now part of the respondent39。s cause as to why...[the] decision should not be appealed and reviewed or that there is an attempt to interfere with the right of the parties to have the matter judicially considered.(2) The record must stand as is. It cannot be amended, buttressed, further explained or justified after an appeal/review [has been] launched. The procedures followed at the [arbitration] hearing must be ascertained from the record. In procedural matters, the appearance of what was done is as important as what was actually done.(3) Since your request for the Arbitrator39。s recollections were forwarded to me on the same day the Arbitrator responded, the objection not to have been made aware of your contact with the Arbitrator in advance and not to have had an opportunity to respond to your request to the Arbitrator before the Arbitrator responded remains.”。在Norman Fera律師的本文章中，他大力抨擊傳召仲裁員作為證人，認(rèn)為這是去允許一些不安好心的做法，以這種辦法去攻擊一位仲裁員，通過(guò)盤(pán)問(wèn)等去顯示他并不公正。他是這樣說(shuō)：“One wonders whether inherent in the right and process of calling arbitrators as witnesses, there is a tendency to involve the parties or their counsel in sharp practices, to sully those that have acted as thirdparty neutral arbitrators and to cast doubt on the very fairness of the judicial review process. There is little hyperbole in those suggestions when one considers that, in the case being discussed, the review/appeal process was started based on the written record available to all parties and that at the eleventh hour, just before the award was to be judicially considered, recollections of the arbitrator were obtained to challenge the legitimate grounds that had originally presented themselves and which had been put forward in good faith as appropriate to support a judicial review.”。 Norman Fera律師也認(rèn)為在法院的上訴不存在把下級(jí)法院的法官傳召作為證人，就沒(méi)有理由去針對(duì)仲裁有這種做法，說(shuō)：“Accordingly, as a general principle, there should be no generally imposed rule that permits one party or the other to summon the arbitrator to explain herself or himself under oath where an appeal and/or review of the arbitration award has been instituted. No such requirement is imposed by the appellate or review courts on their inferior courts and arbitrators should be accorded similar deference, especially in light of the fact that they have been personally selec