本文選題：已撤銷仲裁裁決　切入點：承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行　出處：《湘潭大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：仲裁作為國際貿(mào)易者之間糾紛解決的一種方式最初作為對訴訟弊端的回應(yīng)受到了稱贊。在國際貿(mào)易中，沒有人會不看重仲裁的靈活性、保密性、適合性等這些特征。當(dāng)事人選擇仲裁解決糾紛不僅僅因上面所述特點以及可以自己選擇仲裁員、確定仲裁程序等等，但最為重要的是，仲裁不會使任何一方當(dāng)事人遭受由另外一方國籍國法院來確定當(dāng)事人之間權(quán)利和義務(wù)的風(fēng)險。然而，在實踐中，一國法院對仲裁及其裁決仍保留了某種程度的監(jiān)督權(quán)。就仲裁裁決而言，仲裁國法院有權(quán)依據(jù)自己本國的仲裁法規(guī)定撤銷一項仲裁裁決，而承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行仲裁裁決國（簡稱承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行國）法院也可以根據(jù)其本國法或與其他國家締結(jié)或參加的國際條約，承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行一項仲裁裁決。一個已被原屬地國撤銷的仲裁裁決在另一個管轄權(quán)下能否得到執(zhí)行，是本文所關(guān)注的問題。對于這個論題，不同學(xué)者有不同觀點。此論文不拘泥于分析或解讀其他學(xué)者的觀點，，僅在某個章節(jié)或段落簡單介紹或提及。 全文除引言和結(jié)語外，共分為三章。第一章是已撤銷仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行概述，分為三個小節(jié)：第一節(jié)介紹了何為“已撤銷仲裁裁決”；第二節(jié)，已撤銷仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的兩種爭論：支持與反對；第三節(jié)，已撤銷仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的現(xiàn)狀。第二章為已撤銷仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的國際法與國內(nèi)法依據(jù)。本文在該章的第一節(jié)和第二節(jié)分析解讀了1958年《有關(guān)承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國仲裁裁決的紐約公約》（之后簡稱《紐約公約》）與1961年《有關(guān)國際商事仲裁的歐洲公約》（之后簡稱《歐洲公約》）�，F(xiàn)如今有148個國家采用了《紐約公約》，《紐約公約》被認(rèn)為是“廣泛認(rèn)可的最為成功的私國際法條約”。《歐洲公約》雖是一個區(qū)域性條約，卻已有27個國家批準(zhǔn)了該條約，其重要性是不言而喻。本文通過對這兩個公約的分析發(fā)現(xiàn)其都在不同程度上為已撤銷裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行提供了依據(jù)。第三節(jié)闡述了有關(guān)國家執(zhí)行裁決的國內(nèi)依據(jù)，為下文國家實踐的分析做鋪墊。第三章是已撤銷仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的實踐，通過對法國、美國及其他國家自其開始承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行已撤銷仲裁裁決案例以來對于本論題的態(tài)度變化進(jìn)行闡述分析。該文的重點放在法國與美國的實踐上，其他國家對已撤銷裁決的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行很大程度上受到這兩個國家的影響，如西班牙。一個已撤銷的仲裁裁決在某些情形中是能得到承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的，暫時沒有必要也難以杜絕這種情形的存在。
[Abstract]:Arbitration, as a form of dispute resolution among international traders, was initially praised as a response to the drawbacks of litigation. In international trade, no one values the flexibility and confidentiality of arbitration. Such characteristics as suitability, etc. Parties choose arbitration to resolve disputes not only because of the characteristics described above, but also because they can choose their own arbitrators, determine the arbitration procedure, etc., but most importantly, Arbitration does not expose either party to the risk of a court in the State of nationality of the other party determining the rights and obligations between the parties... however, in practice, A court of a State retains a certain degree of supervision over the arbitration and its award... in the case of an arbitral award, the court of the arbitral State has the power to set aside an arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of its own arbitration law, And the courts of the State of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards (hereinafter referred to as the State of recognition and enforcement) may also, in accordance with their domestic law or international treaties concluded or acceded to with other States, Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. Whether an arbitral award which has been set aside by the original territorial State can be enforced under another jurisdiction is a matter of concern to this article. Different scholars have different points of view. This paper is not confined to analyzing or interpreting the views of other scholars, but simply introduces or refers to them in a section or paragraph. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into three chapters. The first chapter is an overview of the recognition and enforcement of avoided arbitral awards, which is divided into three subsections: the first section introduces what is "setting aside an arbitral award"; Two types of arguments concerning recognition and enforcement of avoided arbitral awards: support and opposition; section III, Chapter two is the basis of international and domestic law for the recognition and enforcement of annulled arbitral awards. In the first and second sections of this chapter, the author analyzes and interprets the relevant recognition and enforcement in 1958. The New York Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereafter referred to as the New York Convention) and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the European Convention). The Convention is considered to be "the most successful private international law treaty widely recognized". Although the European Convention is a regional treaty, 27 countries have ratified the treaty, The importance of these two conventions is self-evident. It is found in this paper that both conventions provide, to varying degrees, a basis for the recognition and enforcement of setting aside awards. Section III sets out the domestic basis for the enforcement of awards by the States concerned. The third chapter is the practice of recognition and enforcement of annulled arbitral awards. The United States and other countries have analyzed the changes in attitude towards this topic since their cases of recognition and enforcement of annulled arbitral awards. The focus of this article is on the practice of France and the United States. Recognition and enforcement of setting aside awards by other States are largely affected by those two States, such as Spain... where a setting aside arbitral award is recognized and enforced in some cases, It is not necessary and difficult to put an end to this situation for the time being.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D997.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 杜新麗;論外國仲裁裁決在我國的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行——兼論《紐約公約》在中國的適用[J];比較法研究;2005年04期

2 謝新勝;;論爭中的已撤銷國際商事仲裁裁決之承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行[J];北京仲裁;2007年03期

3 趙秀文;從克羅馬羅依案看國際仲裁裁決的撤銷與執(zhí)行[J];法商研究;2002年05期

4 黃亞英,李薇薇;論1958年《紐約公約》中的“更優(yōu)權(quán)利條款”[J];法學(xué)雜志;2000年02期

5 朱偉東;;國際商事仲裁裁決承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行中的公共政策問題[J];河北法學(xué);2007年05期

6 郭玉軍,陳芝蘭;論國際商事仲裁中的“非國內(nèi)化”理論[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2003年01期

本文編號：1626611