本文選題：反壟斷爭議 + 國際商事仲裁　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：反壟斷爭議是否具有可仲裁性以及如何承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行涉及反壟斷爭議的國際商事仲裁裁決這兩個問題隨著國際商事仲裁和反壟斷法的日益普及而愈加受到理論界和法律實務(wù)界的關(guān)注。美國作為反壟斷法領(lǐng)域的先驅(qū)者，以Mitsubishi Motors V. Soler Chrysler Plymouth案為發(fā)端，首次肯定了反壟斷爭議的可仲裁性。無獨有偶，歐盟雖未明確肯定其承認(rèn)反壟斷爭議的可仲裁性，但從其判決中也可看出對于該問題歐盟持有肯定的意見。 在肯定反壟斷爭議具有可仲裁性的前提之下，美國和歐盟對于該類裁決如何進(jìn)行承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行階段的審查也建立了具有各自特色的審查機制，既保證了反壟斷爭議通過國際商事仲裁解決的可行性，也保證了反壟斷法的有效實施。 我國對于反壟斷爭議是否具有可仲裁性以及涉及反壟斷爭議的國際商事仲裁裁決在承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行階段如何進(jìn)行審查還沒有相關(guān)的立法和案例。鑒于以歐美為先導(dǎo)的國際社會逐步承認(rèn)反壟斷爭議具有可仲裁性的趨勢，我國很有必要在理論界和實務(wù)界開展這方面的研究，以明確我國對于反壟斷爭議可仲裁性的態(tài)度并制定符合我國國情的涉及反壟斷爭議的國際商事仲裁裁決審查機制。 本文將就反壟斷爭議的可仲裁性和如何對涉及反壟斷爭議的國際商事仲裁裁決進(jìn)行審查展開。通過比較美國和歐盟較為成熟的觀點和做法，為我國明確反壟斷爭議可仲裁性的態(tài)度和制定對該類裁決的審查機制提出建議。 具體而言，本文將分為四個部分： 第一部分將介紹國際商事仲裁中反壟斷爭議的現(xiàn)狀，集中簡介美國和歐盟對于反壟斷爭議的可仲裁性和審查涉及反壟斷爭議的國際商事仲裁裁決的歷史演變。同時，深入分析國際商事仲裁和反壟斷法的價值取向和兩者之間的價值沖突，以此說明為什么學(xué)界和實務(wù)界會對通過國際商事仲裁方式解決反壟斷爭議存在爭議。 第二部分將深入論述反壟斷爭議的可仲裁性問題，并結(jié)合美國和歐盟就該問題裁決的案例說明應(yīng)當(dāng)承認(rèn)反壟斷爭議具有可仲裁性的合理性和合法性。 第三部分將主要論述涉及反壟斷爭議的國際商事仲裁裁決在承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行階段的審查問題。從美國和歐盟的案例和實踐為切入點，深入分析對該類仲裁裁決審查的必要性。 第四部分將針對中國的國情并結(jié)合美國和歐盟的實踐經(jīng)驗，提出我國應(yīng)當(dāng)承認(rèn)反壟斷爭議可仲裁性并建立對涉及反壟斷爭議的國際商事仲裁裁決實質(zhì)性審查的機制。
[Abstract]:With the increasing popularity of international commercial arbitration and antitrust law, the issues of whether antitrust disputes are arbitrable and how to recognize and enforce international commercial arbitration awards involving antitrust disputes have become more and more popular among the theorists and scholars. The concern of the legal profession. As a pioneer in antitrust law, the United States, starting with the Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth case, affirmed for the first time the arbitrability of antitrust disputes. Coincidentally, although the EU has not explicitly affirmed the arbitrability of its recognition of antitrust disputes, it can also be seen from its judgment that the EU holds a positive opinion on this issue. While affirming the arbitrability of antitrust disputes, the United States and the European Union have also established a review mechanism with their own characteristics on how such awards are reviewed at the recognition and enforcement stages, It not only ensures the feasibility of solving antitrust disputes through international commercial arbitration, but also ensures the effective implementation of anti-monopoly law. There are no relevant legislation and cases on whether antitrust disputes have arbitrability or not and how to review international commercial arbitration awards involving antitrust disputes in the stage of recognition and enforcement. In view of the fact that the international community, led by Europe and the United States, has gradually recognized the trend of arbitrability in antitrust disputes, it is necessary for our country to carry out such research in the theoretical and practical circles. In order to clarify China's attitude towards the arbitrability of antitrust disputes and to formulate a review mechanism of international commercial arbitration awards concerning antitrust disputes in accordance with the national conditions of our country. This paper focuses on the arbitrability of antitrust disputes and how to review international commercial arbitration awards involving antitrust disputes. By comparing the more mature viewpoints and practices of the United States and the European Union, some suggestions are put forward for our country to clarify the arbitrability of antitrust disputes and to formulate a review mechanism for this kind of award. Specifically, this paper will be divided into four parts: the first part will introduce the current situation of antitrust disputes in international commercial arbitration. This paper focuses on the arbitrability of antitrust disputes between the United States and the European Union and the historical evolution of the review of international commercial arbitration awards involving antitrust disputes. At the same time, it deeply analyzes the value orientation of international commercial arbitration and antimonopoly law and the value conflict between them, so as to explain why the academic and practical circles have disputes over the settlement of antitrust disputes through international commercial arbitration. In the second part, the arbitrability of antitrust disputes is discussed in depth, and combined with the cases of the United States and the European Union, it should be recognized that the antitrust disputes have the reasonableness and legality of arbitrability. The third part mainly discusses the examination of the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards involving antitrust disputes. From the case and practice of the United States and the European Union, the necessity of reviewing the arbitration award is analyzed in depth. In the fourth part, according to the situation of China and the practical experience of the United States and the European Union, the author points out that China should recognize the arbitrability of antitrust disputes and establish a mechanism for the substantive review of international commercial arbitration awards involving antitrust disputes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(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)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張麗敏;國際商事仲裁中的意思自治[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2033215