本文選題：國(guó)際商事仲裁 + 仲裁權(quán)　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：近年來(lái)，仲裁這一歷史厚重的爭(zhēng)議解決方式在國(guó)際商業(yè)貿(mào)易日趨活躍的環(huán)境下，不斷煥發(fā)出新生般的活力和光彩，集高效、靈活、中立、專(zhuān)業(yè)等優(yōu)勢(shì)于一體的國(guó)際商事仲裁制度，在全球范圍內(nèi)已受到許多當(dāng)事人的青睞。與此同時(shí)，我國(guó)國(guó)際商事仲裁也獲得了長(zhǎng)足的發(fā)展。但是，在仲裁制度的構(gòu)建問(wèn)題上，我國(guó)立法卻顯得較為粗陋而飽受詬��；其中，對(duì)爭(zhēng)議解決主體——仲裁庭地位的忽視，直接導(dǎo)致了仲裁庭授權(quán)不足、內(nèi)容不全和監(jiān)督不當(dāng)?shù)葐?wèn)題，造成了立法與實(shí)踐的脫軌。因此，本文以國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)為選題，對(duì)這一問(wèn)題的國(guó)際立法和實(shí)踐趨勢(shì)進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)完整地闡述，從而為完善我國(guó)的仲裁權(quán)體系以及仲裁立法提出相應(yīng)建議。 本文主要分為六個(gè)部分進(jìn)行展開(kāi)。第一部分是國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的法律界定。首先，本文明晰了國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的定義，采用廣義的解釋方式將國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)界定為仲裁庭在法律授權(quán)和當(dāng)事人授權(quán)的范圍內(nèi)，解決具有國(guó)際性因素的商事?tīng)?zhēng)議，并作出公正裁決的權(quán)力。其中，國(guó)際性因素即是指仲裁當(dāng)事人、爭(zhēng)議客體或是內(nèi)容，具有跨國(guó)因素；商事?tīng)?zhēng)議則泛指契約性或非契約性的一切商事性質(zhì)關(guān)系所引起的爭(zhēng)議。在此基礎(chǔ)上，國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)具有三大主要特點(diǎn)，即以當(dāng)事人授權(quán)與法律授權(quán)為共同構(gòu)成權(quán)力來(lái)源、以解決當(dāng)事人國(guó)際商事?tīng)?zhēng)議為目的，和以國(guó)家司法權(quán)為最終保障。這三大特點(diǎn)是對(duì)仲裁權(quán)定義的深化，能夠幫助區(qū)分仲裁權(quán)與民事審判權(quán)、仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)管理權(quán)和調(diào)解權(quán)。而仲裁性質(zhì)的認(rèn)定對(duì)仲裁權(quán)的法律性質(zhì)也有著直接的影響，就現(xiàn)有立法和實(shí)踐看來(lái)，混合理論更為直接地反映出仲裁權(quán)的現(xiàn)狀，也能夠更為便利地支持仲裁權(quán)的體系化。此外，國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的價(jià)值取向也影響著仲裁權(quán)的規(guī)制和行使，自由是國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的基本價(jià)值取向，而公正和效益兩大重要價(jià)值則應(yīng)予以融合和兼顧，但在對(duì)立時(shí)則應(yīng)以效益價(jià)值為優(yōu)先。 第二部分是國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的來(lái)源。仲裁是當(dāng)事人意思自治的產(chǎn)物，因此，當(dāng)事人的授權(quán)是具有基礎(chǔ)性地位的，其所涉及的內(nèi)容也較為廣泛，一方面，一份有效的仲裁協(xié)議是仲裁庭取得管轄權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)，且從各國(guó)的立法和實(shí)踐看來(lái)，這種有效性的要求在不斷放寬，例如各國(guó)對(duì)瑕疵仲裁協(xié)議的補(bǔ)救，使得當(dāng)事人選擇仲裁的簡(jiǎn)單意思表示一般即可構(gòu)成對(duì)仲裁庭管轄權(quán)的有效授予；另一方面，當(dāng)事人也具有充分的對(duì)仲裁庭組成的決定權(quán)，以及其后對(duì)仲裁庭具體權(quán)力的授權(quán)自由。同時(shí)，法律作為仲裁庭權(quán)力的另一重要來(lái)源，不僅表現(xiàn)為決定仲裁事項(xiàng)的可仲裁性，而且還包括建立一套仲裁程序的體系。當(dāng)事人授權(quán)和法律授權(quán)之間是相互補(bǔ)充，相互限制的，二者缺一不可。 第三部分是國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的具體內(nèi)容。本部分內(nèi)容以權(quán)力的分配和界限為角度，首先對(duì)仲裁庭確立自身管轄的權(quán)力進(jìn)行分析。面對(duì)各國(guó)對(duì)自裁管轄權(quán)消極效力的異議，從保障自裁管轄權(quán)的實(shí)際作用上考慮，保證仲裁庭的優(yōu)先決定權(quán)，限制法院決定管轄權(quán)異議的做法是值得借鑒的。同時(shí)，法院對(duì)仲裁庭管轄權(quán)決定的監(jiān)督階段宜予提前，從而平衡提高監(jiān)督效率的要求。其次，針對(duì)仲裁庭的程序控制權(quán)，首先應(yīng)當(dāng)肯定的是，除非當(dāng)事人或法律另有規(guī)定，仲裁庭應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)仲裁程序有完整的控制權(quán)，其中包括證據(jù)的取得和認(rèn)定，決定采取臨時(shí)保全措施等方面的權(quán)力；并且在必要情況下，法院也應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)仲裁權(quán)的行使進(jìn)行協(xié)助，例如在對(duì)第三方的取證問(wèn)題上。最后，仲裁庭還應(yīng)當(dāng)享有完整的裁決權(quán)，即包括決定法律適用、實(shí)體爭(zhēng)議處理和對(duì)仲裁裁決進(jìn)行補(bǔ)救三大方面。在支持仲裁的理念背景下，總體而言仲裁權(quán)已實(shí)現(xiàn)較高程度的自由化，并呈現(xiàn)出多方面擴(kuò)張的趨勢(shì)。 第四部分是國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的行使。本部分首先明確了仲裁權(quán)行使的三大原則，即遵循依據(jù)授權(quán)、程序正當(dāng)和高效性原則。其次，就仲裁庭行使仲裁權(quán)的方式而言，在多數(shù)決定無(wú)法適用的情況下，以首席仲裁員意見(jiàn)為準(zhǔn)的做法相較于堅(jiān)持多數(shù)決定的做法有著明顯的效率上的優(yōu)勢(shì)。此外，允許首席仲裁員單獨(dú)對(duì)部分仲裁程序事項(xiàng)做出決定的做法也進(jìn)一步豐富了仲裁庭決定的方式。缺員仲裁的問(wèn)題是目前國(guó)際商事仲裁領(lǐng)域的一大挑戰(zhàn)，一方面其在仲裁實(shí)踐中存在切實(shí)需要，另一方面其破壞了仲裁庭行使仲裁權(quán)方式的基本格局，存在破壞程序公正的質(zhì)疑。因此，仲裁庭在面對(duì)這一問(wèn)題時(shí)，必須回歸應(yīng)當(dāng)適用的法律，根據(jù)法律的要求謹(jǐn)慎決定是否進(jìn)行缺員仲裁。最后，本文也對(duì)仲裁庭無(wú)權(quán)行使仲裁權(quán)、越權(quán)行使仲裁權(quán)以及怠于行使仲裁權(quán)三大類(lèi)不當(dāng)行為進(jìn)行了分析和探討。 第五部分是國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的監(jiān)督。有權(quán)力就必然有監(jiān)督，仲裁庭的權(quán)力也不例外。各國(guó)對(duì)仲裁權(quán)的監(jiān)督主要通過(guò)兩大類(lèi)方式加以實(shí)現(xiàn)：其一是直接控制責(zé)任人，追究仲裁員的相應(yīng)責(zé)任；其二則是控制行為結(jié)果，通過(guò)仲裁裁決間接監(jiān)督仲裁權(quán)。這兩種方式在不同層面上實(shí)現(xiàn)了對(duì)仲裁權(quán)行使問(wèn)題的監(jiān)督，同時(shí)合理的監(jiān)督制度也需要平衡仲裁庭的獨(dú)立性和中立性需求。因此，監(jiān)督必不可少，同時(shí)也需要克制，不能過(guò)度。 第六部分是我國(guó)國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的立法現(xiàn)狀和完善�？v觀(guān)我國(guó)關(guān)于國(guó)際商事仲裁權(quán)的立法，仲裁權(quán)授權(quán)不足、內(nèi)容不完整以及監(jiān)督不適當(dāng)?shù)葐?wèn)題都顯得較為突出。首先，我國(guó)立法對(duì)當(dāng)事人授權(quán)的重要性認(rèn)識(shí)不足且要求較為嚴(yán)苛，法律授權(quán)的作用又不充分，規(guī)定零星瑣碎又不重視對(duì)仲裁庭的授權(quán)或是協(xié)助。其次，受到授權(quán)不足問(wèn)題的影響，我國(guó)仲裁權(quán)內(nèi)容也不完整。我國(guó)是少數(shù)未引入自裁管轄權(quán)制度的國(guó)家之一，仲裁庭既無(wú)權(quán)要求當(dāng)事人或第三人提交相關(guān)證據(jù)，也無(wú)權(quán)做出臨時(shí)保全措施的決定，法院對(duì)仲裁的作用也是限制監(jiān)督大于協(xié)助。這些權(quán)力上的不充分都會(huì)直接影響仲裁程序的順利開(kāi)展以及仲裁庭裁決權(quán)的行使。再次，我國(guó)立法對(duì)仲裁員法律責(zé)任的構(gòu)建也不盡合理，對(duì)仲裁裁決的司法監(jiān)督也存在期限過(guò)長(zhǎng)以及審查范圍規(guī)范不恰當(dāng)?shù)膯?wèn)題。因此，，針對(duì)上述各項(xiàng)問(wèn)題，我國(guó)立法應(yīng)當(dāng)在借鑒國(guó)際經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上，予以改進(jìn)和完善。
[Abstract]:In recent years, arbitration, an international commercial arbitration system, which has been renewed in an environment of increasingly active international business and trade, has been welcomed by many parties all over the world. The commercial arbitration has also made great progress. However, in the construction of the arbitration system, China's legislation appears to be rather crude and criticized. Among them, the neglect of the position of the arbitration tribunal, the main body of the dispute settlement, has directly led to the disintegration of the arbitration tribunal's lack of authorization, the inadequacy of the content and the improper supervision. Therefore, this article takes the international commercial arbitration right as the topic, and systematically expounds the trend of international legislation and practice of this problem, so as to put forward some suggestions for improving the arbitration right system and the arbitration legislation in China.
This article is divided into six parts. The first part is the legal definition of the international commercial arbitration right. Firstly, this article clarifies the definition of the international commercial arbitration right and defines the international commercial arbitration right as the arbitration tribunal within the scope of the legal authorization and the parties' authorization. Disputes and the power to make a fair decision. Among them, international factors mean that the parties to the arbitration, the object of the dispute, or the content, have transnational factors; the commercial disputes generally refer to the disputes arising from the contractual or non contractual nature of the commercial nature. On this basis, the international commercial arbitration has three main characteristics, that is, the parties concerned. Authorization and legal authorization constitute the source of power for the purpose of solving the international commercial disputes of the parties and the ultimate guarantee of the state's judicial power. These three characteristics are the deepening of the definition of the right to arbitration, which can help to distinguish between the right of arbitration and the civil trial, the management and mediation of the arbitration institution. The nature of the law also has a direct influence. In the view of the existing legislation and practice, the mixed theory is more direct to reflect the status of the right of arbitration and to support the systematization of the right of arbitration more conveniently. In addition, the value orientation of the international commercial arbitration right also affects the regulation and exercise of the right of arbitration, and freedom is the basic of the international commercial arbitration right. Value orientation, and two important values of justice and efficiency should be integrated and taken into account, but in opposition, priority should be given to the value of benefit.
The second part is the source of the international commercial arbitration right. Arbitration is the product of the autonomy of the parties. Therefore, the authorization of the parties is fundamental and the content involved is more extensive. On the one hand, an effective arbitration agreement is the basis of the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal, and it seems to be effective from the legislation and practice of various countries. The requirement of sex is widening, for example, the remedy of the arbitration agreement of the defective countries, which makes the parties choose the simple meaning of arbitration to represent the effective granting of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; on the other hand, the parties also have the right to determine the composition of the arbitral tribunal, as well as the freedom to authorize the specific power of the arbitral tribunal thereafter. At the same time, as another important source of the power of the arbitration tribunal, the law not only reflects the arbitrability of the arbitration matter, but also includes the establishment of a system of arbitration procedures. The parties' authorization and legal authorization are complementary and restricted to each other, and the two are indispensable.
The third part is the specific content of the international commercial arbitration right. The content of this part is the analysis of the authority of the arbitration tribunal to establish its own jurisdiction in the angle of the distribution and boundary of power. It is worth drawing on the practice of restricting the court to decide the jurisdiction objection. At the same time, the court should advance the supervision stage of the jurisdiction decision of the arbitration tribunal so as to balance the requirement of improving the efficiency of supervision. Secondly, in view of the procedural control of the arbitral tribunal, it should be affirmed that the arbitral tribunal should be on the arbitration procedure unless the parties or the law stipulates otherwise. The order has a complete control, including the acquisition and identification of evidence, the decision to take the power of interim measures, and the court should also assist in the exercise of the right of arbitration, for example, on the issue of evidence for the third party. Finally, the arbitral tribunal should also enjoy a complete right to adjudication, namely, the decision of the law. There are three aspects of the application, the handling of substantive disputes and the remedy of the arbitral award. In the background of the concept of supporting arbitration, the arbitral right has been liberalized in a high degree and presents a trend of expansion in many aspects.
The fourth part is the exercise of the right of international commercial arbitration. This part first clarifies the three principles of the exercise of the right to arbitration, that is, the principle of following the authorization, the legitimacy of the procedure and the principle of efficiency. Secondly, in the case of the arbitral tribunal exercising the right of arbitration, the practice of the chief arbitrator's opinion is compared with the practice of the chief arbitrator in the case that the majority of the decisions can not be applied. The practice of most decisions has obvious efficiency. In addition, the way to allow the chief arbitrator to make a decision on partial arbitral proceedings has further enriched the decision of the arbitral tribunal. The question of the absence of arbitration is a major challenge in the field of international commercial arbitration, and on the one hand it needs to be practical in the practice of arbitration. On the other hand, it destroys the basic pattern of the arbitration tribunal's way of exercising the right of arbitration, and doubts the impartiality of the procedure. Therefore, in the face of this problem, the tribunal must return to the law that should be applied and carefully decide whether to carry out the arbitrator in accordance with the requirements of the law. The three categories of misconduct such as the exercise of arbitration power and the exercise of arbitral rights are analyzed and discussed.
The fifth part is the supervision of the right of international commercial arbitration. The power is inevitably supervised and the power of the arbitral tribunal is no exception. The supervision of the arbitration right is realized mainly through two kinds of ways: one is the direct control of the responsible person and the corresponding responsibility of the arbitrator; the second is to control the result of the act and to supervise indirectly through the arbitral award. The right of arbitration. These two ways have realized the supervision of the exercise of the right of arbitration at different levels. At the same time, a reasonable supervision system also needs to balance the independence and neutrality of the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, supervision is essential, and it also needs restraint and cannot be overdone.
The sixth part is the legislative status and perfection of the international commercial arbitration right in our country. In our country, the legislation on international commercial arbitration right, the insufficient authorization of the right to arbitration, the incomplete content and the improper supervision are all prominent. The role of the right is not sufficient, stipulates sporadic trivia and does not attach importance to the authorization or assistance to the arbitration tribunal. Secondly, the content of arbitration right in our country is not complete under the influence of the lack of authorization. China is one of the few countries that have not introduced the system of jurisdiction, and the arbitration tribunal has no right to submit relevant evidence to the parties or third persons, nor is it right to submit the relevant evidence to the arbitration tribunal. The court's decision to make temporary preservation measures, the role of the court in arbitration is also limited to the assistance. The insufficiency of these powers will directly affect the smooth development of the arbitration procedure and the exercise of the arbitral tribunal's ruling power. Thirdly, the construction of the legal responsibility of the arbitrators in our legislation is not reasonable, and the judicial supervision of the arbitral award is also deposited. Therefore, in view of the above problems, our legislation should be improved and perfected on the basis of the international experience.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.4


本文編號(hào)：1837332