本文選題：國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決 + 司法審查�。� 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：法院對(duì)國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決作出拒絕承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行裁決的理由不一而足�？v觀二十年來(lái)國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決被我國(guó)法院拒絕承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的實(shí)踐,不難發(fā)現(xiàn),仲裁協(xié)議無(wú)效、超越權(quán)限、未獲適當(dāng)通知、未獲充分陳述、仲裁庭組成或仲裁程序不當(dāng)?shù)葹橹匾睦碛�。法官�?duì)前兩種情形的判斷幾乎沒(méi)有多大爭(zhēng)議,而對(duì)后三種情形則擁有較大的自由裁量空間。因而,非常有必要對(duì)后三者這樣的程序性瑕疵進(jìn)行類(lèi)型化分析,以便法院在進(jìn)行司法審查時(shí)更好地把握其限度。 程序性瑕疵一：未獲適當(dāng)通知�！拔传@適當(dāng)通知”在實(shí)踐中主要包括未得到指定仲裁員的適當(dāng)通知和未得到仲裁程序的適當(dāng)通知。而事實(shí)上,對(duì)于“適當(dāng)通知”如何進(jìn)行認(rèn)定,法律和公約都只字未提。相關(guān)的理論認(rèn)為,通知的發(fā)出主體因仲裁形態(tài)及仲裁程序所處的階段不同而不同；通知的內(nèi)容包括與委任仲裁員有關(guān)的通知和仲裁程序進(jìn)行的通知等兩方面；通知的送達(dá)方式可由當(dāng)事人約定,并且隨著通信技術(shù)的更新而進(jìn)行方式的創(chuàng)新。考察相關(guān)案例,法院在通過(guò)法律解釋來(lái)明確審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí),應(yīng)該把握如下限度：一是法院認(rèn)定“適當(dāng)通知”須同時(shí)滿(mǎn)足“適當(dāng)”和“通知”兩個(gè)要件；二是法院對(duì)指定仲裁員期限過(guò)短的抗辯持寬容態(tài)度；三是法院需警惕有違誠(chéng)信原則的“無(wú)賴(lài)抗辯”。 程序性瑕疵二：未獲充分陳述。仲裁庭必須保證當(dāng)事人有進(jìn)行充分陳述的權(quán)利,否則該裁決將面臨被撤銷(xiāo)或被拒絕承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的后果。未得到仲裁程序的適當(dāng)通知,自然會(huì)導(dǎo)致當(dāng)事人未能出庭陳述。除此之外,仲裁庭未給予當(dāng)事人充分陳述的機(jī)會(huì)、剝奪當(dāng)事人充分陳述的權(quán)利等也是此類(lèi)程序性瑕疵的常見(jiàn)情況。但是,未獲充分陳述也可能因?yàn)楫?dāng)事人自身的原因,具體包括仲裁當(dāng)事人消極行為導(dǎo)致未參加仲裁、未能陳述、未充分陳述。據(jù)此,法院在審查“未獲充分陳述”的抗辯時(shí),應(yīng)秉持支持仲裁的態(tài)度,并結(jié)合具體案情來(lái)把握未獲充分陳述的抗辯和有違誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則的抗辯之間的界限。 程序性瑕疵三：仲裁庭組成或仲裁程序不當(dāng)。該類(lèi)程序性瑕疵可以分為四類(lèi)：仲裁庭組成與當(dāng)事人的協(xié)議不符,仲裁庭組成與仲裁地國(guó)家的法律不符,仲裁程序與當(dāng)事人的協(xié)議不符,仲裁程序與仲裁地國(guó)家的法律不符。面對(duì)此種程序性瑕疵,法院應(yīng)充分尊重當(dāng)事人意思自治,對(duì)當(dāng)事人的選擇予以合理保護(hù)；但是在尊重當(dāng)事人選擇的前提下,法院也必須審查當(dāng)事人的約定與強(qiáng)制性法律之間的契合度。具體而言,法院應(yīng)該審查雙方對(duì)于仲裁庭組成的約定是否違反正當(dāng)程序,當(dāng)事人是否存在消極行為放棄異議權(quán)的情形等。 總而言之,法院在審查程序性瑕疵時(shí),應(yīng)該遵守在程序?qū)彿秶鷥?nèi)謹(jǐn)慎行使自由裁量權(quán)的原則,采取以下三階段的分步裁量：第一步,確定待審查的情形是否屬于仲裁的程序性事項(xiàng)。第二步,確定此類(lèi)程序性瑕疵是否屬于嚴(yán)重的程序性瑕疵,是否足以嚴(yán)重?fù)p害當(dāng)事人的程序權(quán)利。第三步,確定本案中是否存在當(dāng)事人放棄異議權(quán)的情形。只有每個(gè)階段的審查得到確定的答案之后,才可對(duì)裁決予以拒絕承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行。
[Abstract]:In the past two decades , international commercial arbitration awards have been rejected by our courts for recognition and enforcement . It is difficult to find that the arbitration agreement is null and void , exceeds the competence , has not been duly informed , has not been fully stated , the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the improper procedure of the arbitration proceedings are important reasons .

Procedural flaws I : Not properly notified . " The failure to give due notice " in practice includes , in practice , the failure to give due notice of the appointment of an arbitrator and an appropriate notice of the failure to obtain an arbitration procedure . In fact , the law and the convention are silent on how the appropriate notice is held . The relevant theory holds that the issue subject of the notice varies depending on the arbitration form and the phase of the arbitration procedure ;
The content of the notice includes two aspects , such as the notice relating to the appointment of the arbitrator and the notice of the arbitration proceedings ;
The notice shall be served in such a manner as to be agreed by the parties and innovated in accordance with the renewal of the communication technology . When the relevant cases are examined , the court shall grasp the following limits when making clear the examination standards through the interpretation of the law : one is that the court holds that " proper notice " shall meet both the " proper " and " notice " ;
Second , the court has a tolerant attitude towards the defence of the duration of the appointed arbitrator ;
Third , the court needs to be vigilant against the principle of good faith " rogue defense " .

Procedural flaws II : Not fully stated . The arbitral tribunal must ensure that the parties have the right to make a full statement or that the award will face the consequences of being withdrawn or denied recognition and enforcement . In addition , the absence of adequate notice of the arbitral proceedings may result in the failure of the parties to appear in court .

Procedural flaws III : Improper composition of arbitral tribunal or improper arbitration proceedings . Such procedural flaws may be divided into four categories : the composition of the arbitration tribunal does not accord with the agreement of the parties , and the arbitration procedure does not accord with the agreement of the parties , and the arbitration proceedings do not accord with the laws of the parties to the arbitration . In the face of such procedural flaws , the court shall fully respect the party ' s autonomy and reasonably protect the choice of the parties ;
However , on the premise of respecting the choice of the parties , the court must also review the agreement between the parties and the mandatory law . In particular , the court should examine whether the agreement of the parties to the composition of the arbitration tribunal violates due process , whether the party has negative behavior , or the case of giving up the right of objection .

In summary , when reviewing procedural flaws , the Court should observe the principle of discretion exercised within the scope of the procedure , take the following three stages of discretion : first , determine whether the situation to be examined is a procedural matter of arbitration . Step 2 , determine whether such procedural flaws are serious procedural flaws , whether it is sufficient to seriously harm the procedural rights of the parties . Step 3 , determine whether a party waives the right to challenge . Only after the review of each stage has been determined , the award may be denied recognition and enforcement .
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.4;D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 宋連斌;董海洲;;國(guó)際商會(huì)仲裁裁決國(guó)籍研究——從最高人民法院的一份復(fù)函談起[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年03期

2 肖永平;也談我國(guó)法院對(duì)仲裁的監(jiān)督范圍——與陳安先生商榷[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1998年01期

3 朱克鵬;論國(guó)際商事仲裁中的法院干預(yù)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1995年04期

4 趙秀文;論ICC國(guó)際仲裁院裁決在我國(guó)的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行[J];法學(xué);2005年06期

5 趙秀文;;國(guó)外仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)裁決不等于外國(guó)仲裁裁決[J];法學(xué);2006年09期

6 董勤;對(duì)國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決司法監(jiān)督的論爭(zhēng)及評(píng)析[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

7 張雅梅，白映福;國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的統(tǒng)一化趨向[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1994年02期

8 楊樺;;論《紐約公約》中仲裁裁決的國(guó)籍問(wèn)題[J];河北法學(xué);2012年02期

9 高薇;;論仲裁裁決的國(guó)籍——兼論中國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的“雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”[J];西北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年05期

10 李迅;;中國(guó)拒絕承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)仲裁裁決實(shí)務(wù)研究[J];仲裁研究;2011年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 王天紅;[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王剛;論我國(guó)對(duì)國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決的司法審查[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2013149