禁令與國(guó)際商事仲裁

1、禁令與國(guó)際商事仲裁禁令作為一種衡平法下救濟(jì)手段已經(jīng)越來(lái)越成為訴訟這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的一個(gè)及其重要的用兵手段與策略，這在今天的國(guó)際商事仲裁中也是一樣。一、履約指令（specific performance）該種與禁令類(lèi)似的救濟(jì)手段往往是用在無(wú)辜方因違約一方的違約行為而遭受到了用金錢(qián)無(wú)法彌補(bǔ)損失或難以計(jì)算損失的情況（如有關(guān)商品在市場(chǎng)上不存在替代品；Beswick v. Beswick 1966 Ch. 538）履約指令不去做出的情況：1、申請(qǐng)?jiān)撀募s指令的原告自己有錯(cuò)或存在不公正的情況2、對(duì)于個(gè)人合約/提供服務(wù)的合約一般不去作出該種救濟(jì)3、合約條文不肯定4、被告無(wú)能力去履行（會(huì)迫使被告在無(wú)力履行的情況下觸犯

2、“藐視法庭”這一刑法）5、因?yàn)樯婕暗叫枰潞蟊O(jiān)督履行的問(wèn)題，所以難以對(duì)履約內(nèi)容進(jìn)行監(jiān)督的也不會(huì)做出，特別是需要在管轄權(quán)以外的地方履行的（例如是一般的建造合約或造船合約Gyllenhammar & Partners International Ltd v. Sour Brodogradevna Split 1989 2 Lloyds Rep. 403）6、雙方在履約指令下的權(quán)利與義務(wù)缺乏相互性7、原告怠慢去行使自己的權(quán)利/做出申請(qǐng)8、不能僅僅針對(duì)部分合同要求被告實(shí)際履約二、最后禁令最后禁令的批準(zhǔn)往往要經(jīng)過(guò)審理后，根據(jù)雙方當(dāng)事人案件的“是非曲直”（merits）而作出，并且具有最終的有效性

3、與約束力。最后禁令針對(duì)的對(duì)象：1、否定性的合約承諾（negative contractual promise）或合約中明示說(shuō)明不會(huì)做什么事情2、限制商貿(mào)/就業(yè)的約定3、外貿(mào)航運(yùn)的提單或托管關(guān)系4、侵權(quán)方面包括經(jīng)濟(jì)侵權(quán)與侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)5、止訴禁令（Anti-suit injunction）三、中間禁令中間禁令的作用與最后禁令不同，它的作出并不以案件的“是非曲直”為基礎(chǔ)，主要的目的是為了“保持現(xiàn)狀”（status quo）。中間禁令通常只維持到有了最終的判決或裁決，到時(shí)候如果禁令還是要繼續(xù)，也應(yīng)該有判決或裁決書(shū)中的永久禁令去替代。因?yàn)橛袝r(shí)原告是在比較“緊急”的情況下需要禁止被告的一些行為，從而無(wú)法等

4、到案件審理結(jié)束。如果不去以暫時(shí)的禁令禁止被告做某些事情（例如侵犯專(zhuān)利權(quán)），原告會(huì)有可能到最后花大量時(shí)間取得訴訟結(jié)果，卻因?yàn)樾蝿?shì)變遷而喪失大部分或者全部的利益。所以“近水救近火”的中間禁令在現(xiàn)在的實(shí)踐中更加常見(jiàn)。對(duì)于中間禁令的批準(zhǔn)，法官主要考慮與平衡的是作出的禁令給原告與被告各自帶來(lái)的損害與不便（comparative prejudice/comparative inconvenience）： American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicon Ltd (1975) A.C. 396。申請(qǐng)中間禁令是以宣誓證據(jù)去支持有關(guān)的事實(shí)，不存在開(kāi)庭取證。宣誓書(shū)中要清楚全面陳述原告所受的侵犯與威脅

5、，盡量只針對(duì)“事實(shí)”不針對(duì)“法律”。另外，在宣誓書(shū)中說(shuō)明自己的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況也很重要，尤其在一面之詞的申請(qǐng)。以一面之詞（Ex parte）作出中間禁令的申請(qǐng)的要求更加嚴(yán)格，必須在宣誓書(shū)中說(shuō)明原告是什么時(shí)候知悉權(quán)利被侵犯，有必要馬上申請(qǐng)中間禁令，以及為何不能或來(lái)不及先通知/送達(dá)被告。必須把所有重要事實(shí)全部陳述，有任何的遺漏都會(huì)使被告事后出面并成功申請(qǐng)法院撤銷(xiāo)該中間禁令。法院/仲裁庭是否作出中間禁令的考慮因素：（1）、是否有一個(gè)嚴(yán)肅的爭(zhēng)端（issue）（2）、金錢(qián)上的損失賠償是否足夠救濟(jì)（3）、權(quán)衡雙方的利益與是否公平（4）、申請(qǐng)中間禁令需要律師提供的宣誓書(shū)四、仲裁庭對(duì)于給出禁令的權(quán)力1、作為仲裁庭去作

6、出禁令給當(dāng)事人救濟(jì)所遇到的困難：A、禁令對(duì)當(dāng)事人具有極大的阻嚇力，相應(yīng)需要有強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行的效力，而仲裁庭沒(méi)有像法院一樣的強(qiáng)制力（不遵守法院的禁令會(huì)因“藐視法庭”contempt of court而觸犯刑法），但香港仲裁條例對(duì)此有2GG條去將仲裁庭的命令變?yōu)榉ㄔ旱拿睢?B、仲裁庭的管轄權(quán)來(lái)自當(dāng)事人的仲裁協(xié)議，因此仲裁庭的命令也只約束仲裁協(xié)議的當(dāng)事人。但禁令通常會(huì)涉及到第三人，這對(duì)第三人往往沒(méi)有管轄力2、法律賦予仲裁員作出禁令的權(quán)利：為了解決以上仲裁庭在實(shí)踐中遇到的困難，許多國(guó)際性的仲裁法或者國(guó)家/地區(qū)的仲裁法都明示賦予仲裁庭頒布禁令的權(quán)力，這包括：聯(lián)合國(guó)示范法第17條：“除非當(dāng)事各方另有協(xié)議，仲裁

7、庭經(jīng)當(dāng)事一方請(qǐng)求，可以命令當(dāng)事任何一方就爭(zhēng)議的標(biāo)的采取仲裁庭可能認(rèn)為有必要的任何臨時(shí)性保全措施。仲裁庭可以要求當(dāng)事任何一方提供有關(guān)此種措施的適當(dāng)擔(dān)保?！毕愀壑俨脳l例：第2GB條 仲裁庭可行使的一般權(quán)力：（1）在進(jìn)行仲裁程序時(shí)，仲裁庭可作出命令或給予指示以處理任何以下事項(xiàng)（e）就有關(guān)財(cái)產(chǎn)（i）指示由仲裁庭，仲裁程序的任何一方或任何專(zhuān)家檢查，拍攝，保存，保管，扣留或出售該財(cái)產(chǎn)；或（ii）指示從該財(cái)產(chǎn)中取去樣本，或?qū)υ撠?cái)產(chǎn)進(jìn)行觀察或試驗(yàn)；（f）批給臨時(shí)強(qiáng)制令或指示采取其它臨時(shí)措施第2GC條 法院就仲裁程序所具有的特別權(quán)力：（1）法院或法院大法官可就某仲裁程序，作出任何以下事情（b）就有關(guān)財(cái)產(chǎn)（i）作

8、出命令指示由仲裁庭，仲裁程序的任何一方或任何專(zhuān)家檢查，拍攝，保存，保管，扣留或出售該財(cái)產(chǎn)；或（ii）作出命令指示從該財(cái)產(chǎn)中取去樣本，或?qū)υ撠?cái)產(chǎn)進(jìn)行觀察或試驗(yàn)；（c）批給臨時(shí)強(qiáng)制令或指示采取其它臨時(shí)措施（在仲裁庭還沒(méi)有成立的時(shí)候，當(dāng)事人可向法院申請(qǐng)）第2GG條 仲裁庭的決定的強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行由仲裁庭在仲裁程序中或就仲裁程序所作出或發(fā)出的裁決、命令或指示，可猶如具有相同效力的法院判決、命令或指示般以相同的方式強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行，但只有在得到法院或法院法官的許可下方可如何強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行。如法院或法官給予該許可，則可按該裁決、命令或指示而作出判決。英國(guó)1996年仲裁法的地位Section 441) Unless otherw

9、ise agreed by the parties, the court has for the purposes of and in relation to arbitral proceedings the same power of making orders about the matters listed below as it has for the purposes of and in relation to legal proceedings. (2) Those matters are (a) the taking of the evidence of witnesses; (

10、b) the preservation of evidence; (c) making orders relating to property which is the subject of the proceedings or as to which any question arises in the proceedings (i) for the inspection, photographing, preservation, custody or detention of the property, or (ii) ordering that samples be taken from

11、, or any observation be made of or experiment conducted upon, the property; and for that purpose authorising any person to enter any premises in the possession or control of a party to the arbitration;(d) the sale of any goods the subject of the proceedings; (e) the granting of an interim injunction

12、 or the appointment of a receiver. (3) If the case is one of urgency, the court may, on the application of a party or proposed party to the arbitral proceedings, make such orders as it thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets. (4) If the case is not one of urgency, the court

13、 shall act only on the application of a party to the arbitral proceedings (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) made with the permission of the tribunal or the agreement in writing of the other parties. (5) In any case the court shall act only if or to the extent that the arbitral t

14、ribunal, and any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with power in that regard, has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively. (6) If the court so orders, an order made by it under this section shall cease to have effect in whole or in part on the order of

15、 the tribunal or of any such arbitral or other institution or person having power to act in relation to the subject-matter of the order. (7) The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section.中國(guó)法的相關(guān)規(guī)定根據(jù)中國(guó)的仲裁法對(duì)于仲裁中產(chǎn)生的證據(jù)保全或財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的問(wèn)題需要由仲裁庭轉(zhuǎn)交給相關(guān)的法院處理，而仲裁員則無(wú)權(quán)頒

16、布相關(guān)的禁令“第二十八條一方當(dāng)事人因另一方當(dāng)事人的行為或者其他原因，可能使裁決不能執(zhí)行或者難以執(zhí)行的，可以申請(qǐng)財(cái)產(chǎn)保全。當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的，仲裁委員會(huì)應(yīng)當(dāng)將當(dāng)事人的申請(qǐng)依照民事訴訟法的有關(guān)規(guī)定提交人民法院。申請(qǐng)有錯(cuò)誤的，申請(qǐng)人應(yīng)當(dāng)賠償被申請(qǐng)人因財(cái)產(chǎn)保全所遭受的損失。第四十六條在證據(jù)可能滅失或者以后難以取得的情況下，當(dāng)事人可以申請(qǐng)證據(jù)保全。當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)證據(jù)保全的，仲裁委員會(huì)應(yīng)當(dāng)將當(dāng)事人的申請(qǐng)?zhí)峤蛔C據(jù)所在地的基層人民法院。第六十八條涉外仲裁的當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)證據(jù)保全的，涉外仲裁委員會(huì)應(yīng)當(dāng)將當(dāng)事人的申請(qǐng)?zhí)峤蛔C據(jù)所在地的中級(jí)人民法院?！蔽?、涉及管轄權(quán)之爭(zhēng)的止訴禁令（Anti-suit injunction）

17、違約方不理會(huì)合約中的仲裁條文并去他意向的國(guó)家法院起訴（包括去申請(qǐng)一個(gè)沒(méi)有責(zé)任的宣誓negative declaration），受害方通常只有以下的選擇：（一）向該國(guó)家法院以紐約公約申請(qǐng)中止程序（危險(xiǎn)是：a可能花費(fèi)高昂的律師費(fèi)；b該國(guó)法院對(duì)仲裁條文的解釋的寬松與嚴(yán)格程度同英國(guó)法院不同）；（二）向違約方將來(lái)提出金錢(qián)上的損失，但問(wèn)題是如果在外國(guó)法院受理并事后作出對(duì)受害方不利的判決，受害方很難證明如果是根據(jù)倫敦仲裁判，會(huì)作出有利的裁決，而兩個(gè)不同的結(jié)果與違約方去向另一個(gè)國(guó)家或地區(qū)的法院起訴有因果關(guān)系。如果受害方向外國(guó)法院成功中止訴訟程序，所花費(fèi)的律師費(fèi)是可以以違約方違反仲裁條文去成功索賠：Union

18、Discount Co Ltd v. Union Cal Ltd (2002) 1 W.L.R. 1517；(三)向英國(guó)法院申請(qǐng)對(duì)違約方做出止訴禁令。這方面所花費(fèi)的律師費(fèi)用可以以補(bǔ)償基礎(chǔ)（indemnity basis）向?qū)Ψㄈ』兀篕yrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd v. Fellows International Holdings Ltd (2005) EWHC 1329 (QB)。英國(guó)法院作出止訴禁令阻止一方當(dāng)事人在其他國(guó)家或地區(qū)法院提起訴訟，以保護(hù)英國(guó)法院有權(quán)管轄（不論雙方是否約定有一條exclusive jurisdiction條款）或雙方已經(jīng)約定了的倫敦仲裁條款的作法。Stua

19、rt-Smith 大法官在Fourie v. Le Roux (2007) UKHL 1 at 25，說(shuō)：“Although injunctions of this nature are commonly and conveniently called anti-suit injunctions, as Lord Hobhouse has pointed out in Turner v. Grovit (2007) 1 WLR 107 at paragraph 23, the terminology is misleading since it fosters the impression t

20、hat the order is addressed and intended to bind another court and that the jurisdiction of the foreign court is in question. That is not the case. That is not the case. In making the order the injuncting court is addressing only the party before it. It is in personam jurisdiction. It is common groun

21、d that there are two categories of anti-suit injunction. The first is where the claimant has no contractual right to have the defendant restrained from pursuing foreign proceedings. That is referred to as the non-contractual type. The second type is where the claimant has a contractual right, founde

22、d on an agreement between the parties, that the defendant will not litigate in any state or forum save that agreed. These are commonly exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration agreement, and are referred to as the contractual cases.”。The “Atlantic Emperor”(No.2) (1992) 1 Lloyds Rep. 624The “Angelic Gra

23、ce” (1994) 1 Lloyds Rep.168止訴禁令通常是最后禁令，但也有可能是中間禁令：Starlight Shipping Co v. Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd. (2008) 1 Lloyds Rep. 230。1、英國(guó)法院頒布的止訴禁令在歐共體國(guó)家之間的適用根據(jù)布魯塞爾公約，歐共體各國(guó)之間的法院應(yīng)該是相互信任的。如果出現(xiàn)這種“擇地行訴”（forum shopping）的情況，應(yīng)該由首先受理的法院自己去決定是否應(yīng)該繼續(xù)，而不受其他法院干涉。在Turner v. Grovit (2007) 1 WLR 107一案中，英國(guó)法院也確認(rèn)了這種做法。但這種做法被

24、歐共體法院視為是違反布魯塞爾公約的做法，所以針對(duì)歐共體國(guó)家，英國(guó)法院再也不會(huì)去作出止訴禁令，強(qiáng)制當(dāng)事人必須前來(lái)英國(guó)法院。但是由于布魯塞爾公約沒(méi)有去針對(duì)仲裁，所以英國(guó)法院認(rèn)為去對(duì)其他歐共體國(guó)家的仲裁做出止訴禁令是沒(méi)有問(wèn)題。這種情況直到The “Front Comor” (2009) EU Case C185/07，歐共體法院判：“It is incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of j

25、udgments in civil and commercial matters for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the courts of another Member State on the ground that such proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement.”但是估計(jì)英國(guó)法院仍然不會(huì)放棄對(duì)其他非歐共體國(guó)家的

26、仲裁做出止訴禁令，以保護(hù)倫敦仲裁的有效性。面對(duì)The “Front Comor”，現(xiàn)在有說(shuō)法是由仲裁員來(lái)作出止訴禁令并根據(jù)英國(guó)1996年仲裁法第42（1）條（香港仲裁條例的2GG條）將其變?yōu)榉ㄔ旱拿?，從而不受到歐共體法院決定的約束。2、破產(chǎn)保護(hù)令下的止訴禁令不少?lài)?guó)家針對(duì)公司破產(chǎn)或者債務(wù)重整都會(huì)有立法規(guī)定對(duì)于該進(jìn)入清盤(pán)程序或者債務(wù)重整程序的公司可以要求中止正在進(jìn)行的訴訟程序以避免個(gè)別債權(quán)人通過(guò)訴訟而比其他債權(quán)人取得更好的地位（例如前者手中有擔(dān)保），也避免去干預(yù)清盤(pán)或者重整的程序。而這種要求往往是通過(guò)清盤(pán)地點(diǎn)的國(guó)家法院以禁令的方式去強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行。這種禁令不光是針對(duì)本國(guó)的債權(quán)人，也會(huì)包括在管轄權(quán)之外的

27、債權(quán)人。例如美國(guó)的Chapter11，破產(chǎn)法院就認(rèn)為他有全球的管轄權(quán)，所以會(huì)毫不猶豫的去向外國(guó)的債權(quán)人或仲裁員作出止訴禁令：Felixstowe Dock and Railway Co. v. US Lines Inc (1989) Q.B. 360與Banque Indosuez SA v. Ferromet Resources Inc (1993) B.C.L.C. 112。針對(duì)英國(guó)的仲裁員而言，在上述先例中也可以看到不必去理會(huì)美國(guó)破產(chǎn)法院所做出的禁令，但危險(xiǎn)是將來(lái)去美國(guó)會(huì)有后遺癥。針對(duì)歐共體國(guó)家的法律，也有類(lèi)似的規(guī)定，就是The European Union's Council

28、Regulation 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings。.在最近的一個(gè)國(guó)際商會(huì)（ICC）仲裁案件，涉及了被告的歐洲一個(gè)船廠要去進(jìn)行債務(wù)重整，負(fù)責(zé)的執(zhí)行人（administrator）以該國(guó)的立法要求仲裁庭不要推進(jìn)仲裁。但這被拒絕，裁決書(shū)其中談到該仲裁庭不同意瑞士較早前的一個(gè)判決，說(shuō)是在清盤(pán)或者清盤(pán)邊緣的公司被接管人接管后就改變了身份，說(shuō)： “The basic rule expressed by the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000, according to which pending proceedings (in

29、cluding arbitration proceedings; English High Court Syska/Elektrim vs Vivendi 2008 2 Lloyds Rep 636) shall not be affected by the opening of insolvency proceedings, must be regarded as a general principle of international private law. Otherwise, arbitration agreements in international transactions a

30、nd trades would lose force. The most critical situation of an international business relation occurs, of course, if one of the contractual parties goes bankrupt or is nearing to go to bankrupt. The doctrine adopted by the Swiss Supreme Court* will be an invitation for a state to interfere into the l

31、egal capacity of their national companies (at the verge of bankruptcy or otherwise) to be a party to arbitration proceedings in order to protect them against upcoming foreign arbitral awards.” *The Swiss Federal Supreme Court case mentioned above, and was doubted by the tribunal, is the Vivendi/Elet

32、rim case (Bundesgericht 4A_428/2008 dated March 31, 20093、外國(guó)法院其他仲裁員或法院作出的止訴禁令這也是在近期國(guó)際仲裁中也是一個(gè)令人頭痛的問(wèn)題，就是外國(guó)法院阻止仲裁員推進(jìn)仲裁（有時(shí)除了仲裁員也會(huì)加上原告或者有關(guān)的仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)作為共同被告）。顯然這是一個(gè)嚴(yán)重干預(yù)國(guó)際仲裁，但是有些國(guó)家（比較有名的是南亞一些國(guó)家）的法院經(jīng)常做出止訴禁令，導(dǎo)致有幾個(gè)著名的倫敦海事仲裁員，也包括Mustill勛爵都在手頭上有幾個(gè)這些南亞國(guó)家對(duì)他們作出的止訴禁令。據(jù)說(shuō)，他們不敢再去這些國(guó)家旅游或者中轉(zhuǎn)飛機(jī)。比較著名的案件介紹如下：1) Hubco v. WAPDA, 1

33、6 Arb Int 439 (2000)這是一個(gè)ICC仲裁，仲裁地點(diǎn)是倫敦，而被告是巴基斯坦水電發(fā)展當(dāng)局。被告與原告訂立了合約去建造一個(gè)在巴基斯坦建造一個(gè)水電廠，合約價(jià)值高達(dá)180億美元。之后雙方發(fā)生爭(zhēng)議有關(guān)電力的價(jià)格應(yīng)該怎樣計(jì)算，原告在1998年7月開(kāi)始仲裁。被告以部分合約涉及貪污受賄的問(wèn)題，向巴基斯坦法院申請(qǐng)作出止訴禁令。巴基斯坦在2006年6月14日作出了止訴禁令，認(rèn)為有關(guān)貪污受賄的指控導(dǎo)致了有關(guān)的爭(zhēng)議是不可仲裁的（non-arbitrable）2) SGS v. Pakistan, 19 Arb Int 179 (2003)這是一個(gè)ICSID仲裁，被告的巴基斯坦政府向巴基斯坦申請(qǐng)止訴禁

34、令。在2002年7月13日，巴基斯坦最高院作出了止訴禁令，但I(xiàn)CSID的仲裁庭不理會(huì)該禁令，并命令被告去向巴基斯坦法院說(shuō)清楚仲裁庭必須盡他的責(zé)任，包括去裁定到底有否管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題。3）Salini Costruttori SpA v. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority 20(3) Mealeys IAR A1 (2005)在這個(gè)案件中，被告在埃塞俄比亞的最高法院申請(qǐng)到一個(gè)止訴禁令，但是仲裁庭并不理會(huì)，去作出裁決書(shū)，并在裁決書(shū)中提到這一方面說(shuō)：“The Arbit

35、ral Tribunal accords the greatest respect to the Ethiopian courts. Nevertheless, the Tribunal considers that it is not bound to suspend the proceedings as a result of the particular injunctions issued by the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal First Instance Court and that, in the particular circu

36、mstances of the case, it is under a duty to proceed with the arbitration.”。注意是這種案件經(jīng)常涉及了被告自己也會(huì)委任一位本國(guó)的仲裁員，他因?yàn)檫€要回到自己的國(guó)家，所以對(duì)于本國(guó)法院作出的止訴禁令不敢不理會(huì)。所以好多時(shí)這些裁決書(shū)就算會(huì)作出，也多數(shù)是由仲裁庭的大多數(shù)意見(jiàn)作出。另一個(gè)針對(duì)的手段就涉及了一種反止訴禁令（anti-anti-suit injunction）。這里著名的案例是KBC v. Pertamina 335 F 3d 357 (5th Cir 2003)，在這個(gè)瑞士的仲裁中，仲裁庭判Pertamina敗訴并要賠償

37、KBC高達(dá)2億6千萬(wàn)美元。在2002年8月27日，印尼雅加達(dá)法院作出一個(gè)永久禁令阻止KBC在全球任何地方執(zhí)行該仲裁裁決書(shū)，如果違反的話，是罰KBC每天50萬(wàn)美元。但勝訴的KBC在美國(guó)的德州法院也申請(qǐng)到一個(gè)反止訴禁令，并要求Pertamina會(huì)撤消印尼法院的訴訟六、訴前財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的Mareva 禁令（1999年英國(guó)民事訴訟規(guī)則中稱(chēng)Freezing Injunction）The “Mareva” (1975) 2 Lloyds Rep. 5091、申請(qǐng)的先決條件：（1）、有一個(gè)表面看上去良好的案件（a good arguable case）（2）、資產(chǎn)有流失的危險(xiǎn)（3）、公平與方便2、如何申請(qǐng)：1、

38、提供一個(gè)全面與坦率的披露2、宣誓書(shū)與草擬命令3、原告要向法院作出的擔(dān)保/保證3、輔助命令針對(duì)被告的輔助命令包括：1、提供/披露資產(chǎn)資料2、對(duì)資產(chǎn)資料的反盤(pán)問(wèn)3、交出資產(chǎn)4、不準(zhǔn)離境 5、禁止聲張的Gagging Orders針對(duì)第三人的輔助命令：提供/披露被告資產(chǎn)資料5、全球性的Mareva禁令（Worldwide Mareva Injunction）Babanaft International Co SA v. Bassatne (1990) Ch 131）Babanaft proviso在Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (Nos 3 and 4) (1990)

39、Ch. 65一案中，被告沒(méi)有任何財(cái)產(chǎn)在英國(guó)境內(nèi)，唯一被知道的財(cái)產(chǎn)是在海外。上訴庭認(rèn)為在這種情況下法院有權(quán)作出判決前的具有域外效力的Mareva禁令（pre-judgement extraterritorial Mareva injunction）。Babanaft proviso措辭如下：“Provided that, in so far as this order purports to have any effect outside England and Wales, no person shall be affected by it or concerned with the term

40、s of it until it shall have been declared enforceable or shall have been recognised or registered or enforced by a foreign court (and then it shall only affect such person to the extent of such declaration or recognition or registration or enforcement) unless that person is:(a) a person to whom this

41、 order is addressed or an officer or an agent appointed by power of attorney of such a person, or (b) a person who is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and who: (i) has been given written notice of this order at his or its residence or place of business within the jurisdiction and (ii) is ab

42、le to prevent acts or omissions outside the jurisdiction of this court which assist in the breach of the terms of this order.”2）Baltic proviso在Baltic Shipping v. Translink (1995) 1 Lloyds Rep. 673一案，作為第三方的銀行向法院申請(qǐng)去修改全球性的Mareva禁令，并加入以下的條款/措辭，被稱(chēng)為Baltic proviso：Baltic proviso措辭如下：“Nothing in this Order

43、shall, as regards Credit Lyonnais（法國(guó)銀行）or any of its subsidiaries (3) in respect of assets located outside England and Wales (and in particular New Caledonia) prevent Credit Lyonnais or its subsidiaries from complying with:(a) what it reasonably believes to be its obligations, contractual or otherwi

44、se, under the laws and regulations of the country or state in which those assets are situated or under the proper law of the account in question;(b) any orders of the Courts of that country or state.”6、Angel Bell命令The “Angel Bell” (1980) 1 Lloyds Rep. 632這是一個(gè)對(duì)Mareva禁令進(jìn)行修改的命令。在Mareva禁令作出之后，法律仍然允許被告用被

45、Mareva禁令凍結(jié)了的財(cái)產(chǎn)去償還被告對(duì)其他債權(quán)人的正常債務(wù)。但是被告與其他債權(quán)人的債務(wù)或者就債務(wù)達(dá)成的和解必須是合情合理的，沒(méi)有惡意或者串謀轉(zhuǎn)移資產(chǎn)的嫌疑。這是因?yàn)槌晒θ〉肕areva禁令并非會(huì)把原告提升為一個(gè)有擔(dān)保的債權(quán)人，也無(wú)意去影響被告正常業(yè)務(wù)與生活所需要的各種支付，畢竟被告還談不上是敗訴。七、Anton Pillar命令該種命令同仲裁的關(guān)系并不是很大，主要是法院命令被告去允許原告或他的代表進(jìn)入被告的地方（住所、廠房、辦公室，等）進(jìn)行搜查，并取走物件，文件或其他資料，作為將來(lái)訴訟所需要的證據(jù)，這在英國(guó)1999年民事訴訟規(guī)則中改稱(chēng)為“搜查令”（Searching Order）。在此只是說(shuō)

46、該命令與Mareva禁令有很多相似之處，如都是中間命令/禁令；都是多數(shù)以“一面之詞”的方式向法院申請(qǐng)；都會(huì)對(duì)被告十分嚴(yán)厲，甚至?xí)斐刹还?。另外在申?qǐng)?jiān)撁罘矫妫才c申請(qǐng)Mareva禁令的要求差不多。例如，原告需要說(shuō)服法官被告是屬于欺詐或不法之徒，他們不會(huì)按照正常訴訟去作出披露，而且會(huì)是去毀滅證據(jù)。所以，這種命令通常不會(huì)對(duì)一些信譽(yù)良好的公司或人士作出，通常的對(duì)象會(huì)是涉及侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)或者欺詐案件。八、國(guó)際仲裁中鼓勵(lì)仲裁員作出禁令根據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)UNCITRAL的仲裁示范法2006年所作出的修改，就是針對(duì)仲裁員有權(quán)去作出中間措施的命令或禁令（不論是否是“一面之詞”的申請(qǐng)）。整個(gè)做法上與英國(guó)法院有很大程度

47、是一致，這修改是加在Article 17，從17A到17G，如下：CHAPTER IV A. INTERIM MEASURESAND PRELIMINARY ORDERS(As adopted by the Commission at its thirty-ninth session, in 2006)Section 1. Interim measuresArticle 17. Power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral

48、tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant interim measures.(2) An interim measure is any temporary measure, whether in the form of an award or in another form, by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, the arbitral tribunal orders a party

49、to:(a) Maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute;(b) Take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself;(c) Provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subse

50、quent award may be satisfied; or(d) Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.Article 17 A. Conditions for granting interim measures(1) The party requesting an interim measure under article 17(2)(a), (b) and (c) shall satisfy the arbitral tribunal that:(a)

51、Harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted; and(b) There is a reasonable possibility that t

52、he requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim. The determination on this possibility shall not affect the discretion of the arbitral tribunal in making any subsequent determination.(2) With regard to a request for an interim measure under article 17(2)(d), the requirements in paragraph

53、s (1)(a) and (b) of this article shall apply only to the extent the arbitral tribunal considers appropriate.Section 2. Preliminary ordersArticle 17 B. Applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party may, without no

54、tice to any other party, make a request for an interim measure together with an application for a preliminary order directing a party not to frustrate the purpose of the interim measure requested.(2) The arbitral tribunal may grant a preliminary order provided it considers that prior disclosure of t

55、he request for the interim measure to the party against whom it is directed risks frustrating the purpose of the measure.(3) The conditions defined under article 17A apply to any preliminary order, provided that the harm to be assessed under article 17A(1)(a), is the harm likely to result from the o

56、rder being granted or not.Article 17 C. Specific regime for preliminary orders(1) Immediately after the arbitral tribunal has made a determination in respect of an application for a preliminary order, the arbitral tribunal shall give notice to all parties of the request for the interim measure, the

57、application for the preliminary order, the preliminary order, if any, and all other communications, including by indicating the content of any oral communication, between any party and the arbitral tribunal in relation thereto.(2) At the same time, the arbitral tribunal shall give an opportunity to

58、any party against whom a preliminary order is directed to present its case at the earliest practicable time.(3) The arbitral tribunal shall decide promptly on any objection to the preliminary order.(4) A preliminary order shall expire after twenty days from the date on which it was issued by the arbitral tribunal. However, the arbitral tribunal may issue an interim measure