前文系统梳理了国际新能源EPC项目区别于传统工程的四大核心特征，从合同、外部环境、履约及主体四个维度解析了争议产生的深层根源，并归纳了主体权责、合同履行、政策变动、行政许可等八大类核心争议类型与典型场景。明确争议的成因与表现形式是有效化解纠纷的前提，但跨境新能源项目争议的复杂性远不止于此——其解决过程始终伴随着跨法域法律冲突、多方利益博弈与技术专业壁垒的三重挑战。接下来，我们将聚焦争议解决的核心实务问题，深入探讨法律冲突与准据法适用的基本规则，解析FIDIC 2017版合同条件下的标准化争议治理机制，并对比分析各类争议解决方式的适用场景与实操要点，为企业构建全流程争议应对体系提供理论支撑。
The preceding sections have systematically sorted out the four core characteristics that distinguish international new energy EPC projects from traditional engineering projects, analyzed the underlying causes of disputes from four dimensions—contract, external environment, performance, and participating entities—and summarized eight major types of core disputes and their typical scenarios, including disputes over subject rights and liabilities, contract performance, policy changes, and administrative licensing. While clarifying the causes and manifestations of disputes is a prerequisite for effectively resolving them, the complexity of disputes in cross-border new energy projects goes far beyond this: their resolution process is always accompanied by the triple challenges of cross-jurisdictional legal conflicts, multi-party interest games, and technical and professional barriers. Next, we will focus on the core practical issues of dispute resolution, delve into the basic rules of legal conflicts and the application of governing law, analyze the standardized dispute governance mechanism under the 2017 FIDIC Contract Conditions, and conduct a comparative analysis of the applicable scenarios and practical key points of various dispute resolution methods, so as to provide theoretical support for enterprises to build a full-process dispute response system.
五、争议解决方式实务分析
Practical Analysis of Dispute Resolution Method
(一)法律冲突与准据法适用问题
Issues of Legal Conflicts and Application of Governing Law
国际新能源EPC项目跨越不同法域，法律冲突与准据法选择构成争议解决的先决性问题。
其一，合同准据法的确定关乎实体权利义务的评判。当事人通常依据意思自治原则在合同中明示选择适用某一国法律或国际惯例(如FIDIC合同条件所蕴含的法律原则)，但在缺乏明示选择时，仲裁庭或法院需依据国际私法规则确定合同的“最密切联系地”法律，这一过程本身即易引发争议。
其二，强制性规则的适用对当事人意思自治构成重要限制。工程所在地国关于环境保护、安全生产、劳动用工、地质抗震等方面的强制性标准，往往具有技术法规属性，无论合同准据法如何选择，此类规定均可能通过“公序良俗”或“直接适用法”理论对项目产生约束力。
其三，国际仲裁中程序法与实体法的区分亦需厘清：仲裁程序适用仲裁地法，而实体争议适用合同约定的准据法，二者分属不同法律体系，当事人在争议解决条款中应予以明确区分。
其四，外国法的查明机制在实践中成为关键环节，通常通过当事人提供专家意见、权威法学著述、判例汇编或成文法条文等方式完成，仲裁庭亦可依职权启动查明程序。
其五，对于联营体内部关系、分包合同效力等问题，需综合考量主体资格适用登记地法、合同效力适用合同准据法等多重法律适用规则，避免单一法律适用带来的偏差。
International new energy EPC projects span different jurisdictions, and legal conflicts and the choice of governing law constitute a prerequisite issue for dispute resolution.
First, the determination of the contract's governing law is crucial to the judgment of substantive rights and obligations. The parties usually explicitly choose to apply the law of a certain country or international practices (such as the legal principles contained in the FIDIC Contract Conditions) in the contract in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. However, in the absence of an explicit choice, the arbitral tribunal or court shall determine the law of the "closest connection" of the contract in accordance with private international law rules, a process that itself is prone to disputes.
Second, the application of mandatory rules constitutes an important restriction on party autonomy. Mandatory standards of the project's host country in terms of environmental protection, work safety, labor employment, geological earthquake resistance and other aspects often have the nature of technical regulations. Regardless of the choice of the contract's governing law, such provisions may bind the project through the theories of "public order and good morals" or "directly applicable law".
Third, the distinction between procedural law and substantive law in international arbitration also needs to be clarified: arbitration procedures apply the law of the place of arbitration, while substantive disputes apply the governing law agreed in the contract. The two belong to different legal systems and should be clearly distinguished by the parties in the dispute resolution clauses.
Fourth, the mechanism for ascertaining foreign law has become a key link in practice, which is usually completed by the parties providing expert opinions, authoritative legal works, case compilations or statutory provisions, and the arbitral tribunal may also initiate the ascertainment procedure on its own initiative.
Fifth, for issues such as the internal relations of the consortium and the validity of subcontracts, it is necessary to comprehensively consider multiple legal application rules such as the application of the law of the place of registration for subject qualification and the application of the contract's governing law for contract validity, so as to avoid deviations caused by the application of a single law.
(二)FIDIC 2017版合同条件下的多层次争议解决机制
Multi-tiered Dispute Resolution Mechanism under the 2017 FIDIC Contract Conditions
FIDIC 2017版合同条件对争议解决机制进行了系统性升级，将原“争端裁决委员会”更名为“争端避免和裁决委员会”，凸显其“避免”与“裁决”双重功能，形成多层次、递进式的争议解决路径。
其一，DAAB的制度设计体现为常设性与早期介入。2017版合同将常设DAAB作为默认规则，要求其在项目启动时即组建，通过定期现场访问、会议沟通等方式持续跟踪项目进展，熟悉技术细节与履约背景，为履行争议避免功能奠定基础。
其二，争议避免功能的实现路径包括“非正式协助”。DAAB可应双方共同请求或主动邀请，就合同履行中的任何问题或分歧提供建议或意见，此类协助程序灵活、方式多样(口头或书面)，且建议本身不具有约束力，但其专业判断有助于双方理性评估立场、弥合分歧，从而将潜在争议消解于萌芽状态。调研数据显示，DAAB在多数项目中实现了争议的“完全避免”或“相对降低”。
其三，争议裁决功能作为仲裁前置程序，具有强制性特征。当争议未能避免时，任一方可将争议正式提交DAAB裁决，DAAB应在84天内或双方约定的其他期限内作出书面决定。该决定对双方具有约束力，须立即执行;若一方在收到决定后28天内未发出“不满意通知”，则该决定成为终局性决定。
其四，裁决后的友好协商与仲裁衔接机制。若一方发出不满意通知，双方应在启动仲裁前努力友好解决;无论是否尝试友好解决，不满意通知发出28天后即可启动仲裁。仲裁庭有权审查争议实体，亦可依据合同条款以简易程序执行DAAB决定。
其五，DAAB的效力在实践中得到较高认可：调研表明，双方在大多数情况下遵守DAAB裁决，后续提起仲裁或诉讼的比例低于10%，且仲裁或诉讼结果实质性改变DAAB裁决的情形极为罕见。FIDIC 2017版的DAAB机制通过“避免—裁决—仲裁”的递进设计，实现了争议解决的效率性、专业性与终局性的统一，为国际新能源EPC项目提供了标准化的争议治理路径。
The 2017 FIDIC Contract Conditions have upgraded the dispute resolution mechanism in a systematic manner, renaming the original Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) as the Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board (DAAB) to highlight its dual functions of "avoidance" and "adjudication", forming a multi-tiered and progressive dispute resolution path.
First, the institutional design of the DAAB is characterized by permanence and early intervention. The 2017 version of the contract sets the permanent DAAB as a default rule, requiring its establishment at the project initiation stage. The DAAB continuously tracks project progress through regular on-site visits, meeting communications and other methods, familiarizes itself with technical details and performance background, laying a foundation for performing its dispute avoidance function.
Second, the realization path of the dispute avoidance function includes "informal assistance". The DAAB may, at the joint request of both parties or on its own initiative, provide suggestions or opinions on any issues or differences in contract performance. Such assistance procedures are flexible and diverse (oral or written), and the suggestions themselves are not binding. However, its professional judgment helps the parties to rationally assess their positions and bridge differences, thus resolving potential disputes in the bud. Research data shows that the DAAB has achieved "complete avoidance" or "relative reduction" of disputes in most projects.
Third, the dispute adjudication function, as a mandatory pre-arbitration procedure, is characterized by enforceability. When a dispute cannot be avoided, either party may formally submit the dispute to the DAAB for adjudication, and the DAAB shall render a written decision within 84 days or such other period as agreed by the parties. The decision is binding on both parties and must be enforced immediately; if either party fails to issue a "notice of dissatisfaction" within 28 days of receiving the decision, the decision shall become final and binding.
Fourth, the mechanism for the connection between amicable negotiation after adjudication and arbitration. If either party issues a notice of dissatisfaction, the parties shall endeavor to settle the dispute amicably before initiating arbitration; regardless of whether amicable settlement is attempted, arbitration may be initiated 28 days after the issuance of the notice of dissatisfaction. The arbitral tribunal has the right to review the substantive dispute and may also enforce the DAAB's decision in a summary procedure in accordance with the contract clauses.
Fifth, the effectiveness of the DAAB has been highly recognized in practice: research shows that the parties comply with the DAAB's decisions in most cases, the proportion of subsequent arbitration or litigation is less than 10%, and cases where the results of arbitration or litigation substantially alter the DAAB's decisions are extremely rare. Through the progressive design of "avoidance - adjudication - arbitration", the DAAB mechanism under the 2017 FIDIC Contract Conditions realizes the unification of efficiency, professionalism and finality in dispute resolution, providing a standardized dispute governance path for international new energy EPC projects.
(三)主要争议解决方式及其适用场景
Main Dispute Resolution Methods and Their Applicable Scenarios
在明确法律适用前提与FIDIC标准化路径的基础上，国际新能源EPC项目仍需依托具体的争议解决方式处理实际纠纷。各类方式在程序刚性、成本投入、周期长短及执行效力上存在显著差异，需结合争议性质与商业诉求审慎选择。
On the basis of clarifying the premise of legal application and the FIDIC standardized path, international new energy EPC projects still need to rely on specific dispute resolution methods to handle actual disputes. Various methods differ significantly in terms of procedural rigidity, cost input, cycle length and enforcement effect, and need to be carefully selected in light of the nature of the dispute and commercial demands.
协商(Negotiation)
协商作为成本最低、灵活性最高的争议解决方式，在国际新能源EPC项目中通常为首要尝试路径。其核心优势在于可自主掌控协商进程与结果，避免司法或仲裁程序对项目推进的长期拖累，同时能最大程度维护合作双方的商业关系，为后续潜在合作保留空间。实务中，协商多围绕争议核心诉求，结合项目实际履约情况、技术可行性及利益平衡原则展开，需重点关注证据固定(如履约记录、技术参数凭证)与沟通纪要的书面确认，避免协商过程中的口头承诺因无书面依据引发二次争议。但协商的有效性依赖双方合作意愿与利益契合点，若涉及核心利益分歧，或一方缺乏协商诚意，该方式往往难以达成实质成果。
As the most cost-effective and flexible dispute resolution method, negotiation is usually the first recourse in international new energy EPC projects. Its core advantages lie in the parties' ability to independently control the negotiation process and results, avoid the long-term delay of project progress caused by judicial or arbitration procedures, and maintain the commercial relationship between the cooperating parties to the greatest extent, reserving space for potential future cooperation.
In practice, negotiation is mostly carried out around the core demands of the dispute, combined with the actual project performance, technical feasibility and the principle of interest balance. It is necessary to focus on evidence fixation (such as performance records, technical parameter certificates) and the written confirmation of communication minutes to avoid secondary disputes caused by oral commitments during the negotiation process without written basis. However, the effectiveness of negotiation depends on the cooperation willingness and interest alignment of both parties; if core interest differences are involved or one party lacks the sincerity to negotiate, this method is often difficult to achieve substantive results.
调解(Mediation)
调解通过引入中立第三方，在尊重双方意愿的基础上协助梳理争议焦点、搭建沟通桥梁，兼具灵活性与专业性。对于技术密集型的新能源EPC项目，选择具备能源行业背景与跨境争议处理经验的调解员，可更精准把握技术争议的核心症结，提出符合行业惯例与实际操作的解决方案。同时，调解程序不公开的特点能有效保护项目商业秘密与企业声誉，避免争议扩大对项目融资、政府关系等造成负面影响。调解协议的效力需通过司法确认或仲裁裁决转化为可执行依据，实务中需注意在调解协议中明确履行条款与违约责任，确保调解成果能够落地。该方式适用于争议尚未完全激化、双方仍有一定合作基础，且希望快速化解纠纷、降低时间成本的场景。
Mediation introduces a neutral third party to assist in sorting out the focal points of disputes and building a communication bridge on the basis of respecting the wishes of both parties, combining flexibility and professionalism. For technology-intensive new energy EPC projects, selecting a mediator with energy industry background and experience in handling cross-border disputes can more accurately grasp the core crux of technical disputes and propose solutions in line with industry practices and actual operations.
At the same time, the confidential nature of the mediation procedure can effectively protect the project's trade secrets and corporate reputation, avoiding the negative impact of the escalation of disputes on project financing, government relations and other aspects. The effect of a mediation agreement needs to be converted into an enforceable basis through judicial confirmation or arbitral award. In practice, attention should be paid to clarifying the performance clauses and liability for breach of contract in the mediation agreement to ensure the implementation of the mediation results. This method is applicable to scenarios where disputes have not been fully intensified, both parties still have a certain foundation for cooperation, and they hope to resolve disputes quickly and reduce time costs.
国际仲裁(International Arbitration)
国际仲裁因其中立性、专业性、跨境执行性、无需受到严格的程序性限制等优势，成为国际新能源EPC项目争议解决的主流选择。[1]在管辖约定上，双方通常会优先选择具有能源争议处理经验的国际仲裁机构(如ICC、SIAC、CIETAC)，并明确仲裁地、仲裁语言与法律适用规则——考虑到项目跨境属性，法律适用多选择中立国法律或国际惯例(如FIDIC合同条件)，避免单一国家法律的地域倾向性。仲裁的专业性体现在可组建由能源工程、跨境法律、融资领域专家组成的仲裁庭，精准审理技术密集型、利益关联复杂的争议。同时，《纽约公约》保障了仲裁裁决在全球多数国家的强制执行效力，有效解决了跨境争议“执行难”的问题。但仲裁程序存在周期较长、费用较高的不足，实务中需在合同争议解决条款中明确仲裁程序简化机制，并提前固定关键证据，以提升仲裁效率。
International arbitration has become the mainstream choice for dispute resolution in international new energy EPC projects due to its advantages such as neutrality, professionalism, cross-border enforceability and freedom from strict procedural restrictions. In terms of jurisdiction agreement, the parties usually prefer to select international arbitration institutions with experience in handling energy disputes (such as ICC, SIAC, CIETAC) and specify the place of arbitration, arbitration language and applicable law rules. Considering the cross-border nature of the project, the applicable law is mostly the law of a neutral country or international practices (such as the FIDIC Contract Conditions) to avoid the regional tendency of the law of a single country.
The professionalism of arbitration is reflected in the ability to form an arbitral tribunal composed of experts in the fields of energy engineering, cross-border law and financing to accurately hear technology-intensive disputes with complex interest correlations. At the same time, the New York Convention guarantees the enforceable effect of arbitral awards in most countries around the world, effectively solving the problem of "difficult enforcement" in cross-border disputes. However, arbitration procedures have the disadvantages of long cycle and high cost. In practice, it is necessary to clarify the mechanism for simplifying arbitration procedures in the contract's dispute resolution clauses and fix key evidence in advance to improve arbitration efficiency.
诉讼(Litigation)
诉讼因管辖刚性、程序严格等特点，在国际新能源EPC项目争议中多作为补充选择，仅适用于特定场景：
一是争议涉及东道国政府或公共利益，需通过东道国法院获得具有强制执行力的裁判。
二是双方未约定有效仲裁条款，或仲裁条款因形式瑕疵被认定无效，无法通过仲裁解决争议。
三是争议涉及财产保全、证据保全等紧急事项，需借助法院的强制措施保障后续权利实现。
诉讼的核心劣势在于跨境执行难度大、审理周期长，且可能受东道国司法地域保护影响。[2]此外，诉讼程序公开性较强，易泄露项目商业秘密与技术信息。实务中，若选择诉讼方式，需提前调研东道国司法体系、诉讼程序规则及判决执行情况，优先选择司法独立、程序规范、与中国存在司法协助条约的国家或地区作为管辖法院。
Due to characteristics such as rigid jurisdiction and strict procedures, litigation is mostly a supplementary choice in disputes over international new energy EPC projects and is only applicable to specific scenarios:
First, the dispute involves the host country government or public interests, and a legally enforceable judgment needs to be obtained through the host country's court.
Second, the parties have not agreed on an effective arbitration clause, or the arbitration clause is deemed invalid due to formal defects, making it impossible to resolve the dispute through arbitration.
Third, the dispute involves urgent matters such as property preservation and evidence preservation, and it is necessary to resort to the compulsory measures of the court to safeguard the subsequent realization of rights and interests.
The core disadvantages of litigation are the high difficulty of cross-border enforcement, long trial cycle and potential impact of judicial regional protection in the host country.[3]In addition, the high publicity of litigation procedures is likely to disclose the project's trade secrets and technical information. In practice, if litigation is chosen, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation of the host country's judicial system, litigation procedure rules and the enforcement of judgments in advance, and prioritize the selection of courts in countries or regions with an independent judiciary, standardized procedures and judicial assistance treaties with China as the competent courts.
总结(Summary)
国际新能源EPC项目的争议解决涉及法律冲突的前置判断与程序路径的组合选择。在实体层面，需统筹考虑合同准据法、工程所在地强制性规则、国际惯例的适用关系，避免单一法律适用带来的不确定性;在程序层面，FIDIC 2017版合同提供的DAAB机制为争议避免与快速裁决提供了标准化路径，值得在合同谈判阶段予以采纳和细化。协商与调解侧重柔性化解，能快速降低争议对项目推进的影响、维护商业关系，但效力依赖双方意愿与后续固化。国际仲裁凭借中立性、专业性及跨境执行优势，成为跨境争议的主流选择，适配复杂技术与多方利益绑定类争议，但存在周期与成本较高的问题。诉讼则作为特定场景下的补充路径，其刚性管辖与执行难度需重点考量。企业需在合同签订阶段提前规划争议解决条款、明确准据法与管辖机构，争议发生后根据核心诉求灵活选择组合路径，并注重全过程证据管理与合规记录，以提升争议解决的主动性与可预期性。
The dispute resolution of international new energy EPC projects involves the pre-judgment of legal conflicts and the combination of procedural paths. At the substantive level, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the applicable relationship between the contract's governing law, the mandatory rules of the project's host country and international practices to avoid uncertainty caused by the application of a single law; at the procedural level, the DAAB mechanism provided by the 2017 FIDIC Contract Conditions offers a standardized path for dispute avoidance and rapid adjudication, which is worthy of adoption and refinement in the contract negotiation stage.
Negotiation and mediation focus on flexible resolution, which can quickly reduce the impact of disputes on project progress and maintain commercial relations, but their effectiveness depends on the wishes of both parties and subsequent consolidation. International arbitration has become the mainstream choice for cross-border disputes by virtue of its neutrality, professionalism and cross-border enforceability, suitable for complex technical disputes and disputes with multi-stakeholder interest binding, but has the problems of long cycle and high cost. Litigation serves as a supplementary path in specific scenarios, and its rigid jurisdiction and enforcement difficulty need to be carefully considered.
Enterprises need to plan dispute resolution clauses in advance, clarify the governing law and competent authority at the contract signing stage, flexibly select combined paths according to core demands when disputes arise, and attach importance to full-process evidence management and compliance records to enhance the initiative and predictability of dispute resolution.
注释及参考文献：
[1]参见[美]加里·博恩：《国际仲裁：法律与实践》，白麟、陈福勇等译，商务印书馆2015年版，第19页。
[2]参见许军珂：《国际私法上的意思自治》，法律出版社2005年版，第171-181页。
参考文献:
一、中国国内法、司法解释等文件：
[1]《中华人民共和国可再生能源法》
[2]《中华人民共和国招标投标法》
[3]《中华人民共和国外商投资法》
[4]《中华人民共和国仲裁法》
[5]《国务院关于促进光伏产业健康发展的若干意见》
[6]《基础设施和公用事业特许经营管理办法》
[7]《国务院关于加快建立健全绿色低碳循环发展经济体系的指导意见》
二、国际公约与多边条约：
[8]《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(《纽约公约》)
[9]《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》
[10]《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则》
[11]《国际商事合同通则》
三、学术著作：
[12][美]加里·博恩：《国际仲裁：法律与实践》，白麟、陈福勇等译，商务印书馆2015年版
[13]许军珂：《国际私法上的意思自治》，法律出版社2005年版
[14]覃华平：《论国际投资调解机制的续造与中国路径》，载《当代法学》2025年第6期
四、网络资源：
[15]中材节能土耳其 H29 SALIHLI 10MW 生物质发电项目成功并网发电 [EB/OL]. 2021-01-15. http://www.sinoma-ec.cn/contents/268/17232.html.
[16]涉 “一带一路” 国家能源索赔争议中的英国法律查明和适用 [EB/OL]. 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会，2026-01-04. https://www.cietac.org/articles/34444.
作者简介
刘俊丽，高级合伙人，管理主任，国际工程与PPP业务部主任、合伙人会议薪酬与分配委员会主任
拥有24+年法律工作经验，累计办理案件700余件，经办案件标的额超1000亿元人民币。专注于国际 / 国内建设工程投建运全生命周期法律服务(PPP、BOT、EPC、FIDIC等);政府与社会资本合作及特许经营项目全生命周期法律服务;新基建、新能源项目投建营全生命周期法律服务;能源与环境工程(EOD)投建运全生命周期法律服务;并深耕上述领域重大疑难争议解决法律服务。
国际工程与PPP业务团队
「三级 + 四化」全维度服务保障
刘俊丽主任团队搭建了「三层三级」组织架构，推行核心骨干主导 + 执行层高效协同 + 各地分支机构及合作咨询机构联动补位的服务模式，实现专业服务能力与人力调配灵活性的双重保障。
团队以专业化、行业化、团队化、国际化为发展内核，成员均为深耕国内外大型基础设施与公共服务领域的专业律师，多数具备工程、法律双专业背景;同时长期与战略投资、工程咨询等领域专业机构深度合作，组建跨领域服务联盟，为客户提供一体化解决方案。
手机：13391809892
邮箱：liujunli@deheheng.com