本文關(guān)鍵詞： 仲裁中對(duì)律師的處罰 IBA指導(dǎo)意見(jiàn) 律師不當(dāng)行為　出處：《外交學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：仲裁作為一種重要的爭(zhēng)端解決方式,在《紐約公約》的促進(jìn)下取得了重大成功。近些年來(lái),仲裁案件數(shù)量顯著增長(zhǎng),標(biāo)的額也越來(lái)越大。在經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的驅(qū)使下大量人員進(jìn)入仲裁領(lǐng)域就業(yè)。人員的涌入在促進(jìn)行業(yè)發(fā)展的同時(shí)也造成了巨大的問(wèn)題。如,代理律師執(zhí)業(yè)能力及素質(zhì)參差不齊,執(zhí)業(yè)習(xí)慣因人而異。這些情況就導(dǎo)致仲裁領(lǐng)域中律師不當(dāng)行為的發(fā)生越來(lái)越頻繁。同時(shí),在利益的驅(qū)使以及仲裁制度特點(diǎn)的掩護(hù)下,這種不當(dāng)行為越來(lái)越多地成為一種實(shí)現(xiàn)己方利益最大化的手段,嚴(yán)重影響仲裁程序的順暢進(jìn)行,以及仲裁結(jié)果的客觀公正。就這一問(wèn)題,國(guó)際仲裁領(lǐng)域已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了相關(guān)學(xué)術(shù)討論,并在實(shí)務(wù)領(lǐng)域中一定程度上引入了對(duì)律師的處罰制度。比如國(guó)際律師協(xié)會(huì)(International Bar Association以下簡(jiǎn)稱“IBA”)的《IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱“指導(dǎo)意見(jiàn)”)以及倫敦國(guó)際仲裁院(The London Court of International Arbitration以下簡(jiǎn)稱“LCIA”)2014年發(fā)布的仲裁規(guī)則。本文也將以上述兩部文件為主要參考資料對(duì)律師的處罰制度加以分析。具體結(jié)構(gòu)如下:第一部分:概括介紹對(duì)仲裁領(lǐng)域律師的不當(dāng)行為處罰的學(xué)理發(fā)展。主要涉及的問(wèn)題為律師的不當(dāng)行為現(xiàn)狀、成因,以及仲裁庭是否有權(quán)進(jìn)行處罰。第二部分:以IBA的指導(dǎo)意見(jiàn)、LCIA 2014年的仲裁規(guī)則,以及各法學(xué)家的論文為藍(lán)本,分析國(guó)際仲裁領(lǐng)域?qū)β蓭煵划?dāng)行為處罰制度的實(shí)踐。其中具體問(wèn)題包括:應(yīng)明確禁止的不當(dāng)行為有哪些;可以采用的處罰方式;可以執(zhí)行處罰的機(jī)構(gòu)。第三部分:主要通過(guò)問(wèn)卷調(diào)查的形式,收集我國(guó)仲裁領(lǐng)域從業(yè)人員對(duì)這一問(wèn)題的看法和觀點(diǎn)傾向,并通過(guò)理論分析,為完善我國(guó)仲裁領(lǐng)域相關(guān)制度構(gòu)建提供建議。第四部分:結(jié)論及展望。再次強(qiáng)調(diào)仲裁案件中律師不當(dāng)行為對(duì)仲裁案件審理程序及裁決結(jié)果的影響,并希望我國(guó)各仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)可以完善仲裁規(guī)則從而在一定程度上緩解這一問(wèn)題的負(fù)面影響。
[Abstract]:Arbitration as an important method of dispute settlement, promoted by the New York Convention, has achieved great success. In recent years, the number of arbitration cases has increased significantly. In the economic interests driven by a large number of people into the arbitration field of employment. The influx of personnel in promoting the development of the industry but also caused huge problems. The practice ability and quality of lawyers are not uniform, and the practice habits vary from person to person. These cases lead to more and more frequent misconduct of lawyers in the field of arbitration. At the same time. Driven by interests and covered by the characteristics of arbitration system, this kind of misconduct has become a means to maximize the interests of our own parties, seriously affecting the smooth conduct of arbitration procedures. And the objective and fair outcome of arbitration. On this issue, the field of international arbitration has been the relevant academic discussions. To some extent, the system of punishment for lawyers has been introduced in the field of practice. For example, the International Bar Association (. International Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as "IBA"). IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International. Arbitration > (. (hereinafter referred to as the "guidance opinion") and the London Court of International Arbitration (. The London Court of International Arbitration (hereinafter referred to as "LCIA"). The arbitration rules issued in 2014. This article will also use the above two documents as the main reference materials to analyze the system of punishment of lawyers. The specific structure is as follows: part I:. This paper briefly introduces the theoretical development of misconduct punishment of lawyers in the field of arbitration. The main problem involved is the current situation of lawyers' misconduct. The causes and whether the arbitral tribunal has the power to impose penalties. Part two: based on the guidance of the IBA, the arbitration rules of 2014, as well as the papers of the jurists as the model. This paper analyzes the practice of the system of punishment for lawyers' misconduct in the field of international arbitration. The specific problems include: what kind of misconduct should be prohibited; The form of punishment that can be adopted; The third part: mainly through the form of questionnaire, collect the opinions and opinion tendency of the practitioners in the arbitration field of our country, and through the theoretical analysis. In order to improve the construction of the relevant system in the field of arbitration in China, part 4th: conclusions and prospects. Again emphasize the impact of misconduct of lawyers in arbitration cases on the proceedings and the outcome of arbitration cases. It is hoped that the arbitration institutions in our country can perfect the arbitration rules so as to alleviate the negative effects of this problem to a certain extent.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李功國(guó);脫劍鋒;;辦理仲裁案件的幾點(diǎn)感受[J];人大研究;2005年12期

2 柯昌信;一起裁定不予執(zhí)行的涉外仲裁案件[J];法律適用;1995年05期

3 鄢焱;;論河南省有關(guān)涉外仲裁案件的管轄及其優(yōu)化[J];長(zhǎng)春工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年04期

4 葉祝頤;;勞動(dòng)仲裁案件井噴的喜憂[J];中國(guó)新聞周刊;2008年46期

5 周研;;仲裁案件缺席審理實(shí)踐初探[J];北京仲裁;2006年03期

6 黃良友;文庭婷;;仲裁案件網(wǎng)上審理研究[J];重慶郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年01期

7 劉傳慕;對(duì)仲裁案件能否追加第三人問(wèn)題探析[J];山東審判;1998年06期

8 嚴(yán)紅;;滾動(dòng)結(jié)算交易仲裁案件相關(guān)問(wèn)題探究[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2012年06期

9 曹偉;;銀川:一樁疑點(diǎn)重重的仲裁案件[J];小康;2014年02期

10 周建紅;處理涉港仲裁案件應(yīng)注意的法律問(wèn)題[J];國(guó)際貿(mào)易;1995年12期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 沈潔穎;;車險(xiǎn)仲裁案件難點(diǎn)及仲裁技巧的探討[A];浙江省2013年保險(xiǎn)法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 內(nèi)蒙古自治區(qū)巴彥淖爾市中級(jí)人民法院 李瀅 磴口縣人民法院 莫勇;促進(jìn)仲裁案件審查 確保仲裁結(jié)果真實(shí)[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 本報(bào)記者 謝興吾 特約通訊員 李柯夫;長(zhǎng)沙受理首起外國(guó)人勞動(dòng)維權(quán)仲裁案件[N];中國(guó)勞動(dòng)保障報(bào);2007年

3 記者 潘穎穎;溫州金融仲裁案件審理簡(jiǎn)化[N];溫州日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

4 ;仲裁案件司法審查和執(zhí)行的若干意見(jiàn)解讀(一)[N];上海法治報(bào);2014年

5 吳鐸思;勞動(dòng)仲裁案件每年遞減20%[N];工人日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

6 記者 陳程;仲裁案件年增八成[N];哈爾濱日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

7 記者 馨蘭;去年貴陽(yáng)仲裁案件七成涉“房”[N];法制生活報(bào);2011年

8 記者 陳國(guó)超;上半年仲裁標(biāo)的額逾8億元[N];珠海特區(qū)報(bào);2013年

9 鄭發(fā);仲裁案件一槌定音[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

10 陳慧;仲裁案件須在45日內(nèi)辦結(jié)[N];中山日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 廖博宇;對(duì)仲裁案件中律師不當(dāng)行為的處罰[D];外交學(xué)院;2017年

2 王恒東;青島市仲裁案件信息化管理研究[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

3 劉晶;仲裁案件引入“長(zhǎng)臂”效應(yīng)的和諧意義[D];西北大學(xué);2010年

4 陳書(shū)成;人民法院審理涉仲裁案件若干問(wèn)題研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號(hào)：1483454