Материал: Том 2 № 3

Цифровоеправо.Том2, №3, 2021, с.8–22

А.А.Костин,А.В.Гребельский/Цифровойарбитраж—полезноеорудиеврукахhomosapiens

арбитража.Соответственно,современемподразумеваемыйвыборприменимогоправа,намой взгляд, может гораздо чаще отыскиваться в праве, применимом к основному контракту в силу наличиясоответствующейоговорки.Однакоополнойделокализацииречьидти,намойвзгляд, неможет.

ВзаключениенашейбеседыхотелосьбыузнатьВашемнение—естьлибудущееу«циф- ровогоарбитра»илиразрешатьспорыспособенисключительночеловек?

А.Г.:Как мы знаем, уже сейчасбольшое число споров среди пользователейтаких площадок, как eBay и Alibaba, решается посредством использования специальных компьютерных алгоритмов. Это удешевляет и ускоряет процесс. Однако по-настоящему сложные правоотношения, коими являются коммерческие споры с иностранным элементом, пока «цифровые арбитры» рассматривать не способны. Тем не менее почти уверен, что соответствующиетехнологии помогут им в будущем разобраться и в «высшейматематике» юриспруденции — международном частномправе.Смеюлишьнадеяться,чтоэтапрекраснаяэпоханачнетсянепринас.

А.К.:Еслиотноситьсяк«цифровомуарбитражу»какполезномуорудиюврукахhomo sapiens, тоегоожидаетсветлоебудущее.

Сведенияобавторах:

КостинА.А. —кандидатюридическихнаук,профессор,заведующийкафедрой международногочастного и гражданского права им. С. Н. Лебедева Московского государственного института международных отношений (МГИМО-Университет) МИД России, председатель Международного коммерческого арбитражного суда и Морской арбитражной комиссии при Торгово-промышленной палате Российской Федерации, Москва, Россия.

ORCID 0000-0002-6991-4084

Гребельский А. В.* — кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедрымеждународного частного и гражданскогоправаим.С.Н.ЛебедеваМосковского государственногоинститутамеждународныхотношений (МГИМО-Университет)МИД России,председатель Коллегии по международнымспорамАрбитражногоцентраприРоссийскомсоюзепромышленниковипредпринимателей,Москва,Россия. grebelsky_a_v@mgimo.ru

ORCID 0000-0003-1301-3727

ИНТЕРВЬЮ 15

Digital Law Journal.Vol.2, No.3, 2021,p.8–22

AlexeyA.Kostin,AlexanderV.Grebelsky/DigitalArbitration—AUsefulToolintheHands

Editorial

Currently, general digitalization has not spared the sphere of arbitration. What are the advan- tagesanddisadvantagesofintroducingdigitaltechnologies,howhasCOVID-19 influencedthework of leading arbitration institutions, does digitalization imply the delocalization of ICA, and does a “digital arbitrator” have a future? Alexey A. Kostin and Alexander V. Grebelsky answered these and otherquestionsfromMaximI.Inozemtsev,Editor-in-ChiefoftheDigitalLawJournal.

Alexey A. Kostin — Ph. D. in Law, Professor, Head of the S. N. Lebedev Department of Private InternationalandCivilLaw,MGIMO-University.PresidentoftheInternationalCommercialArbitration Court (ICAC) and the Maritime Arbitration Commission (MAC) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (CCI RF). Member of the Scientific Advisory Councils at the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, as well as of the Council for codificationanddevelopmentofcivillegislationatthePresidentoftheRussianFederation,member of the Charted Institute of Arbitrators (London). Chairman of the editorial board of the Commercial ArbitrationjournalissuedbytheRussianCCI.AdvisortotheInternationalFederationofCommercial ArbitrationInstitutions.

Professor Kostin focuses on the legal issues of international trade and international arbitration. Author of numerous publications on civil and commercial law of the Russian Federation and foreign countries, on different issues of legal regulation of foreign trade and international commercial arbitration, he has repeatedly participated as an arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings undertherulesofmanyoftheworld’sleadingarbitrationinstitutions.

Alexander V. Grebelsky — Ph. D. in Law, Associate Professor of the S. N. Lebedev Department of Private International and Civil Law, MGIMO-University. Chairman of the Board for International Disputes of the Arbitration Center at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. Deputy Director of the Information Center of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in Moscow. Deputy Chairman of the Commission for Arbitration at the Association of Lawyers of Russia. Chairman of the Commission for the Development of Arbitration and ADR at the Moscow Branch of the Association of Lawyers of Russia. Member of the Russian branch of the International Law Association.

Dr. Grebelsky is the Managing Partner of the Grebelsky & Partners Law Office and leads the practice of resolving international commercial disputes. He is the author of various publications and comments on the problems of international commercial and investment arbitration, international civilprocedure,legalregulationofinternationalcommercialtransactions.

16 INTERVIEW

INTERVIEW

Dear colleagues, as is well known, there is currently a multitude of ways to define “digital law,” aswellasseveralpossibilitiespertainingtothenotionof“arbitration”.Thesituationisevenmore complicated when we try to unite these to notions. Do you think that new technologies have influencedarbitration?Inyouropinion,isitfairtosaythatdigitalizationincreasestheefficiencyofarbitration?Or,conversely,therearesomenegativeconsequencesofimplementation?

A.K.:Iwouldliketodrawyourattentiontothefactthatinmoderndomesticarbitrationlawtheterm “arbitration”isunderstood,first,astheprocessofresolvingdisputesbyanarbitraltribunal(apanelof arbitrators)and,second,asthemakingofadecisionbythelatter.Ofcourse,arbitrationasaprocedure could not avoid the impact of new technologies, especially in the field of communications and information storage. Meaningful use of “digitalization” contributes to the efficiency of both the arbitration proceedingsthemselvesandtheiradministrationbypermanentarbitrationinstitutions.

A.G.:IagreewithAlekseyKostin.Newtechnologiescertainlyenabletheuseofvideoconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also the transition to electronic document management. This should include, for example, the use of e-bundles — case materials formed into special electronic volumes, with which both arbitrators and parties can work simultaneously. Moreover, specialized arbitration institutions have appeared that consider disputes within the framework of commercial transactions carried out on the Internet. This is the so-called online arbitration, which has gained particular popularity in China. Some centres (according to their assurances) are already considering hundredsofthousandsofsuchInternetdisputesayear.

Alexander,youhavenotedsomepeculiaritiesofworkintheCOVID-19 era?Werethereanyother changesintheworkofleadingarbitrationinstitutionsmadeduringthisperiod?

A. G.: At the very beginning of the pandemic, the provisions of the arbitration rules, which ensured wide discretion of the arbitral tribunal as a result of using video conferencing tools during

17

Digital Law Journal.Vol.2, No.3, 2021,p.8–22

AlexeyA.Kostin,AlexanderV.Grebelsky/DigitalArbitration—AUsefulToolintheHands

hearings, played a positive role in consideration of cases by the Arbitration Center at the Russian

Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP). In our experience, in most cases, both parties either asked for remote hearings themselves or gladly agreed to the relevant proposals of the arbitrators. But even where one of the parties could object to such a format, the arbitrators, taking into accounttheprovisionsoftherules,couldmakeanappropriatedecisionontheirown.Asaresult,in

2020, more than half of the 350 cases were processed using video conferencing systems, the largest number of such cases occurring in the third and fourth quarters of 2020. The staff of the apparatus, whenpossible,workedremotely.However,thisdidnotinanywayaffectthetimingorthequalityof disputeadministration,whichisalsoshownbytheincreasednumberofcasesconsideredlastyear.

A.K.: The International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (CCI RF) did not stop working during the pandemic. In addition to the use of the entire range of means to prevent the spread of infection, the use of distant means of communication has expanded during organizational meetings and oral hearings, as well as meetings of collegial bodies such as the Presidium and the Committee for the Appointment of Arbitrators of the

ICAC,primarilythroughvideoconferencing.

HastheICAappointmentprocedurechangedasaresultoftheintroductionofdigitaltechnology?

A.K.: This aspect of the administration of arbitration has not undergone any significant “mutations”intheinternationaldimension.WithregardtotheICAC,asalreadynoted,themeetingsofthe nominating committees were held in absentia, if necessary, and the President of the ICAC, in urgent cases,begantousemoreoftenthedelegatedpowersoftheappointingbodythathehad.

A.G.:The procedure for appointing arbitrators was carried out in strict accordance with the rules andhasnotundergoneanychanges.Itisgratifyingtonotethatforeignarbitratorsalsoparticipated in several international disputes considered by the center in 2020, which, again, during the border closureperiod,becamepossibleowingtotheuseofvideoconferencingsystems.

Asweknow,ensuringconfidentialityisoneofthemainadvantagesofdisputeresolutioninarbitration.Doestheuseofelectronictechnologiescreateproblemsofdataleakageanddigitalsecurity whenstoringdocuments,providingevidence,andcommunicatingwithpartiestoarbitration?

A.K.: One cannot but agree that the use of digital technologies often raises reasonable doubts about the preservation of the principle of confidentiality, which is considered one of the attractive featuresofcommercialarbitration.Ofcourse,thepartiesarefreetolimitorrefuseitifnecessary,but unauthorized intrusion into private proceedings is not allowed, which implies the need to develop anduseappropriatemeansofprotectionagainsthackers.

A.G.: Long before the pandemic, the center was faced with the question of how to ensure confidentialityinthecaseofremotehearings.Unlikemanyforeigncenters,inwhichhearingsarecarried out using available public systems like Zoom, the Arbitration Center under the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs opted for the Russiandeveloped Mind system, which is unusual in that it is hosted on servers located directly in the premises of the arbitration center, which is an

18 INTERVIEW

Цифровоеправо.Том2, №3, 2021, с.8–22

А.А.Костин,А.В.Гребельский/Цифровойарбитраж—полезноеорудиеврукахhomosapiens

additional guarantee of confidentiality. Nowadays, when cyberattacks reach an unimaginable scale, it is, of course, impossible to insure against them for 100 %. But it should be understood that in an ordinary “face-to-face” dispute there is a risk of information leakage, since in addition to the aforementioned risks, there is always the process of interaction of the parties and their legal representatives with the case materials aside from the arbitration institution and arbitrators. Unfortunately, Russianlawfirmsstillpayinsufficientattentiontocybersecurityissues.

Howcanthepartiesformalizetheiragreementontheuseofinformationtechnologyinthecourse ofdisputeresolution?Isitnecessarytoobtaintheconsentofthearbitrator?

A.K.: It seems that the main thing in this story is the agreement by all parties involved in the arbitration proceedings (primarily arbitrators and parties, as well as, where necessary, arbitration institutions)oninformationtechnologiesthatareequallyaccessibletoallandwillbeused.Suchan agreement between the parties alone is unlikely to create the desired effect. This agreement does notrequireanyspecialformalization.

A.G.: Of course, if such an agreement is reached by the parties during the proceedings, its content should be discussed with the arbitral tribunal, but it is unlikely that the arbitrators will find it necessarytoobjecttotherationalagreementoftheparties.Ifsuchanagreementisreachedbefore the procedure starts and its conditions do not contradict the mandatory rules contained in the regulations and the applicable law, there should be no special problems with the fulfillment of its conditions.Alargenumberofarbitrationagreements,whichensureexclusivelyvirtualoralhearingsare beingconcludedaroundtheworld.Duringtheperiodofthepandemic,thepartieshaveappreciated thecost-effectivenessofthisoption.

Whatarethemainproblemswithobtainingelectronicevidenceininternationalcommercialarbitrationfromyourpointofview?Arethereanydifficultiesinobtainingsuchevidence?

A.G.: In my opinion, electronic evidence is a much more reliable source of information than paper evidence. It is known that any electronic document has metadata that allows you to establish additionalinformationaboutitsorigin,change,andmovement.Inaddition,inthecaseofelectronic document management, such as e-mail messaging, documents leave a digital footprint, since any message other than the user’s computer passes through the outbound and inbound mail servers. Technologies have been developed throughout the world for working with such evidence, as well as detailed protocols, such as the one that is regularly prepared in the United States within the framework of the so-called Sedona conference. However, there is still the problem of a shortage of specialists in this area in Russia. Suffice it to say that every serious American law firm has a special department called E-discovery. I have not yet heard of the existence of such departments in any Russianlawfirms.

A.K.:Themainthinghereisverification:thatis,howtheauthenticityoftheinformationthatwas sentintheformofelectronicdocumentswillbeconfirmed.Asarule,intheabsenceofamechanism for the use of an electronic signature, it is very likely that in some cases it will be necessary to requestoriginalsofdocumentsortheirdulycertifiedcopies.

ИНТЕРВЬЮ 19