仲裁裁決撤銷制度的比較研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-04 18:34
【摘要】：商事仲裁作為一種制度化的司法外民商事糾紛解決方式,如今備受人們青睞的重要原因之一就在于仲裁一裁終局的特點。但是,這種糾紛解決方式自產(chǎn)生之日起,就面臨與同樣可以處理民商事爭議的法院的關(guān)系問題。商事仲裁在本質(zhì)上是當(dāng)事人將業(yè)已發(fā)生或尚未發(fā)生的爭議提交仲裁機構(gòu)解決的一種契約性安排,正如沒有絕對的契約自由一樣,商事仲裁也不可能完全擺脫一國法院對其的司法干預(yù),各國法院也不可能對這種準司法行為放任自流,不給予任何審查和監(jiān)督。一旦仲裁裁決出現(xiàn)瑕疵,當(dāng)事人同樣也希望通過適當(dāng)?shù)乃痉ūO(jiān)督機制對裁決進行異議。因此,仲裁一裁終局的特性與法院必要的司法監(jiān)督之間歷來便存在一種張力,如何協(xié)調(diào)二者之間的關(guān)系、保持二者的適度平衡,既發(fā)揮仲裁解決爭議的優(yōu)勢,又不徹底排除法院對仲裁必要的司法監(jiān)督,一直是仲裁理論界亙古不變的話題。 在仲裁庭作出終局裁決以后,司法對仲裁的監(jiān)督手段主要表現(xiàn)為撤銷或不予執(zhí)行仲裁裁決。其中,撤銷系使已經(jīng)生效的仲裁裁決自始喪失法律效力,是最嚴厲的司法監(jiān)督措施。一些國家的立法和《聯(lián)合國國際貿(mào)易法委員會國際商事仲裁示范法》明確規(guī)定申請撤銷是對仲裁裁決惟一的追訴方式。這一規(guī)定代表和體現(xiàn)了各國支持仲裁的政策取向,符合現(xiàn)代商事仲裁實踐的潮流,因而得到許多國家的響應(yīng)和采用。但是,目前尚無專門規(guī)定裁決撤銷制度的國際公約,導(dǎo)致各國在這一問題上的立法與實踐存在較大差異。這種狀況對國際和國內(nèi)仲裁的良性發(fā)展顯然不利。實踐中,各國在撤銷裁決領(lǐng)域的不同做法,諸如撤銷裁決是否必然導(dǎo)致仲裁協(xié)議失效、是否完全否定裁決本身的效力以及已撤銷的裁決能否繼續(xù)執(zhí)行等,為學(xué)界進行理論研究提供了豐富的素材。因此,從實踐上總結(jié)各國的不同做法,從理論上厘清各種相關(guān)問題,對于規(guī)范仲裁裁決的撤銷程序、維護仲裁裁決的終局性、促進商事仲裁的健康發(fā)展,具有十分重要的實踐意義和理論價值。 本文的主體部分共包括五章內(nèi)容。 第一章從探討仲裁裁決的概念和類型、比較不同類型的撤銷入手,界定相關(guān)術(shù)語,厘清研究范圍；同時,對仲裁裁決撤銷的法律程序,包括裁決撤銷權(quán)的歸屬、撤銷裁決之訴等以及設(shè)置仲裁裁決撤銷制度的價值取向和意義進行了論述,為全文研究的展開作出必要的鋪墊。 第二章首先結(jié)合各國國內(nèi)立法和國際條約,概述了仲裁裁決撤銷的各種理由。然后分別從仲裁裁決本身的問題、仲裁管轄權(quán)問題、仲裁程序性缺陷、證據(jù)問題、爭議事項的可仲裁性問題以及仲裁裁決是否違反公共秩序等幾方面分析了撤銷仲裁裁決的理由。本章結(jié)合一些國家的最新立法和實踐中的案例,通過比較研究的方式論述了各國在立法中規(guī)定仲裁裁決的撤銷理由時,應(yīng)該遵循國際社會的普遍做法,將撤銷的理由盡量限定在程序性理由。 第三章探討了仲裁裁決撤銷的法律后果,主要從仲裁協(xié)議和裁決本身出發(fā),分析裁決撤銷后原仲裁協(xié)議的效力以及裁決本身的效力。對仲裁協(xié)議的效力問題,各國立法規(guī)定迥異,有些國家規(guī)定裁決被撤銷后原仲裁協(xié)議即失效,有些則規(guī)定原協(xié)議繼續(xù)有效,有些則將決定權(quán)留給了法院,還有些國家則規(guī)定了較為特殊的例外情形；裁決撤銷對原裁決也會產(chǎn)生影響,一般來說,裁決被撤銷具有域內(nèi)和域外效力,少數(shù)承認與執(zhí)行已撤銷裁決的國家認為裁決的撤銷不具有域外效力,這并非國際社會的普遍做法。本章還在學(xué)者總結(jié)的基礎(chǔ)上分析了幾類承認與執(zhí)行已撤銷裁決的理論基礎(chǔ)模式,為下章論述裁決被撤銷后的救濟奠定基礎(chǔ)。 第四章論述了撤銷仲裁裁決的救濟問題。以撤銷程序的推進為線索,論述了撤銷程序中的救濟,即重新仲裁的問題,也分析了裁決被撤銷后可能救濟的方式,包括向法院上訴、重新達成仲裁協(xié)議進行仲裁或向法院另行起訴；本章的最后,結(jié)合最新的案例重點分析了理論界熱議的已撤銷仲裁裁決的承認與執(zhí)行問題,重點解析了此問題產(chǎn)生的根源并預(yù)測了已撤銷裁決承認與執(zhí)行的發(fā)展趨勢。 第五章回歸中國裁決撤銷制度本身,通過實證研究的方式,以仲裁機構(gòu)近年來被法院撤銷的裁決樣本解構(gòu)了中國仲裁裁決撤銷制度存在的各種問題,運用大量案例和圖表試圖一窺我國仲裁裁決撤銷的現(xiàn)狀。本章的最后,文章分別就國內(nèi)裁決和涉外裁決撤銷的完善問題提出了可行的建議,指出就國內(nèi)裁決而言,仲裁員在作出裁決時應(yīng)注意到裁決在法律上的安全性,法院應(yīng)改進仲裁觀等；對于涉外仲裁裁決的撤銷,應(yīng)規(guī)范撤銷理由、嚴格撤銷程序、明確涉外裁決撤銷的效力以及完善涉外裁決的救濟等。
[Abstract]:As a kind of institutionalized judicial dispute settlement method, commercial arbitration is now one of the most important reasons for people's favor, which lies in the characteristics of arbitration at the end of the end. However, since the emergence of the dispute settlement, it is confronted with the relationship with the court which can also deal with the civil and commercial disputes. Commercial arbitration is in essence. It is a contractual arrangement for the parties to submit the disputes that have been or not occurred to the arbitration agency. As there is no absolute freedom of contract, commercial arbitration can not be completely free from judicial intervention by a state court. Once the arbitration award is defective, the parties also hope to disagree with the award through appropriate judicial supervision mechanism. Therefore, there is always a tension between the characteristics of the final arbitration and the necessary judicial supervision of the court, how to coordinate the relationship between the two parties, maintain the moderate balance of the two parties, and play an arbitration solution to the dispute. It has always been an invariable topic in the field of arbitration theory that the advantages of the negotiations do not completely exclude the necessary judicial supervision of the court on arbitration.
After the final decision is made by the arbitral tribunal, the main means of supervision by the judiciary are to revoke or not execute the arbitral award. In this case, the revocation department makes the arbitral award which has been in force from the beginning to lose its legal effect and is the most severe judicial supervision measure. The model law clearly stipulates that the application of revocation is the only way of recourse to the arbitral award. This provision represents and embodies the policy orientation of countries to support arbitration and is in line with the trend of modern commercial arbitration practice. Therefore, it has been responded to and adopted by many countries. However, there are no international conventions that specializes in determining the revocation system, which leads to various countries. There are great differences between legislation and Practice on this issue. This situation is obviously unfavorable to the benign development of international and domestic arbitration. In practice, different countries' different practices in the field of revocation, such as whether the revocation of the arbitral award will inevitably lead to the failure of the arbitration agreement, completely deny the effectiveness of the decision itself and whether the revoked adjudication will follow. It provides a rich material for the theoretical research of the academic community. Therefore, it is of great practical significance and theoretical price to sum up the different practices of various countries and to clarify various related issues from the practice and to standardize the procedures for the cancellation of arbitral awards, to maintain the finality of the arbitral awards and to promote the healthy development of commercial arbitration. Value.
The main part of this article includes five chapters.
The first chapter is to discuss the concept and type of arbitral award, to compare the different types of revocation, to define the relevant terms, to clarify the scope of the study, and to discuss the value orientation and significance of the legal procedure for the cancellation of the arbitral award, including the adjudication of the right of revocation of the adjudication, the revocation of the verdict, and the value orientation and significance of setting the system for the cancellation of the arbitral award. The full text of the research to make the necessary paving.
The second chapter, first of all, combined with domestic legislation and international treaties, summarized the various reasons for the cancellation of arbitral awards, and then analyzed the withdrawal from the question of the arbitration award itself, the question of arbitration jurisdiction, the procedural defects of arbitration, the issue of evidence, the arbitrability of the disputes and the violation of the public order in the arbitral award. Based on the latest legislation and practice in some countries, this chapter discusses the reasons for the revocation of arbitral awards in the legislature by comparative study, and should follow the general practice of the international community and limit the reasons for revocation to procedural reasons.
The third chapter discusses the legal consequences of the cancellation of the arbitral award, mainly from the arbitration agreement and the award itself, to analyze the validity of the original arbitration agreement after the revocation of the arbitral award and the validity of the award itself. The agreement continues to be valid, while some have left the decision to the court, and some countries have specified a more exceptional case; the revocation has an impact on the original award, and in general, the award has been revoked within and outside the territory, and the revocation of the verdict is not extraterritorial. This is not the universal practice of the international community. On the basis of the summary of the scholars, this chapter analyses the theoretical basis of several kinds of recognition and enforcement of the revoked verdict, which lays the foundation for the next chapter to discuss the relief after the adjudication has been revoked.
The fourth chapter discusses the relief of the revocation of the arbitral award. With the advance of the revocation procedure as a clue, the revocation of the revocation procedure is discussed, that is, the remedies of the revocation procedure, that is, the remedies of the arbitral award, and the possible ways of remedies after the adjudication has been revoked, including the appeal to the court, the re agreement of the arbitration agreement for arbitration or a separate prosecution in the court; the final chapter of this chapter, Combined with the latest cases, this paper focuses on the analysis of the recognition and implementation of the revoked arbitral award in the theoretical circle, focusing on the root cause of the problem and predicting the development trend of the recognition and implementation of the revoked adjudication.
The fifth chapter returns to the system of revocation of China's adjudication. Through the empirical study, it deconstructs the various problems existing in the system of revocation of China's arbitral award by the sample of the arbitral institution which has been revoked by the court in recent years, and tries to use a large number of cases and charts to see the current situation of the withdrawal of arbitration award in China. The perfect question of the adjudication and the revocation of foreign adjudication has put forward feasible suggestions, pointing out that in terms of domestic adjudication, the arbitrator should pay attention to the legal security of the arbitral award, the court should improve the view of arbitration, and so on. The revocation of the arbitral award should be revoked, the procedure should be revoked strictly, and the foreign adjudication is revoked. The effect and the relief of the foreign adjudication.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D997.4
本文編號：2164747
[Abstract]:As a kind of institutionalized judicial dispute settlement method, commercial arbitration is now one of the most important reasons for people's favor, which lies in the characteristics of arbitration at the end of the end. However, since the emergence of the dispute settlement, it is confronted with the relationship with the court which can also deal with the civil and commercial disputes. Commercial arbitration is in essence. It is a contractual arrangement for the parties to submit the disputes that have been or not occurred to the arbitration agency. As there is no absolute freedom of contract, commercial arbitration can not be completely free from judicial intervention by a state court. Once the arbitration award is defective, the parties also hope to disagree with the award through appropriate judicial supervision mechanism. Therefore, there is always a tension between the characteristics of the final arbitration and the necessary judicial supervision of the court, how to coordinate the relationship between the two parties, maintain the moderate balance of the two parties, and play an arbitration solution to the dispute. It has always been an invariable topic in the field of arbitration theory that the advantages of the negotiations do not completely exclude the necessary judicial supervision of the court on arbitration.
After the final decision is made by the arbitral tribunal, the main means of supervision by the judiciary are to revoke or not execute the arbitral award. In this case, the revocation department makes the arbitral award which has been in force from the beginning to lose its legal effect and is the most severe judicial supervision measure. The model law clearly stipulates that the application of revocation is the only way of recourse to the arbitral award. This provision represents and embodies the policy orientation of countries to support arbitration and is in line with the trend of modern commercial arbitration practice. Therefore, it has been responded to and adopted by many countries. However, there are no international conventions that specializes in determining the revocation system, which leads to various countries. There are great differences between legislation and Practice on this issue. This situation is obviously unfavorable to the benign development of international and domestic arbitration. In practice, different countries' different practices in the field of revocation, such as whether the revocation of the arbitral award will inevitably lead to the failure of the arbitration agreement, completely deny the effectiveness of the decision itself and whether the revoked adjudication will follow. It provides a rich material for the theoretical research of the academic community. Therefore, it is of great practical significance and theoretical price to sum up the different practices of various countries and to clarify various related issues from the practice and to standardize the procedures for the cancellation of arbitral awards, to maintain the finality of the arbitral awards and to promote the healthy development of commercial arbitration. Value.
The main part of this article includes five chapters.
The first chapter is to discuss the concept and type of arbitral award, to compare the different types of revocation, to define the relevant terms, to clarify the scope of the study, and to discuss the value orientation and significance of the legal procedure for the cancellation of the arbitral award, including the adjudication of the right of revocation of the adjudication, the revocation of the verdict, and the value orientation and significance of setting the system for the cancellation of the arbitral award. The full text of the research to make the necessary paving.
The second chapter, first of all, combined with domestic legislation and international treaties, summarized the various reasons for the cancellation of arbitral awards, and then analyzed the withdrawal from the question of the arbitration award itself, the question of arbitration jurisdiction, the procedural defects of arbitration, the issue of evidence, the arbitrability of the disputes and the violation of the public order in the arbitral award. Based on the latest legislation and practice in some countries, this chapter discusses the reasons for the revocation of arbitral awards in the legislature by comparative study, and should follow the general practice of the international community and limit the reasons for revocation to procedural reasons.
The third chapter discusses the legal consequences of the cancellation of the arbitral award, mainly from the arbitration agreement and the award itself, to analyze the validity of the original arbitration agreement after the revocation of the arbitral award and the validity of the award itself. The agreement continues to be valid, while some have left the decision to the court, and some countries have specified a more exceptional case; the revocation has an impact on the original award, and in general, the award has been revoked within and outside the territory, and the revocation of the verdict is not extraterritorial. This is not the universal practice of the international community. On the basis of the summary of the scholars, this chapter analyses the theoretical basis of several kinds of recognition and enforcement of the revoked verdict, which lays the foundation for the next chapter to discuss the relief after the adjudication has been revoked.
The fourth chapter discusses the relief of the revocation of the arbitral award. With the advance of the revocation procedure as a clue, the revocation of the revocation procedure is discussed, that is, the remedies of the revocation procedure, that is, the remedies of the arbitral award, and the possible ways of remedies after the adjudication has been revoked, including the appeal to the court, the re agreement of the arbitration agreement for arbitration or a separate prosecution in the court; the final chapter of this chapter, Combined with the latest cases, this paper focuses on the analysis of the recognition and implementation of the revoked arbitral award in the theoretical circle, focusing on the root cause of the problem and predicting the development trend of the recognition and implementation of the revoked adjudication.
The fifth chapter returns to the system of revocation of China's adjudication. Through the empirical study, it deconstructs the various problems existing in the system of revocation of China's arbitral award by the sample of the arbitral institution which has been revoked by the court in recent years, and tries to use a large number of cases and charts to see the current situation of the withdrawal of arbitration award in China. The perfect question of the adjudication and the revocation of foreign adjudication has put forward feasible suggestions, pointing out that in terms of domestic adjudication, the arbitrator should pay attention to the legal security of the arbitral award, the court should improve the view of arbitration, and so on. The revocation of the arbitral award should be revoked, the procedure should be revoked strictly, and the foreign adjudication is revoked. The effect and the relief of the foreign adjudication.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D997.4
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 田曉云;仲裁裁決撤銷程序中的重新仲裁問題探討[J];北方工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報;2000年04期
2 王莉;;國內(nèi)仲裁司法監(jiān)督實證研究——以北京仲裁委員會為例[J];北京仲裁;2004年01期
3 宋連斌;;理念走向規(guī)則:仲裁法修訂應(yīng)注意的幾個問題[J];北京仲裁;2004年02期
4 李夢園;宋連斌;;論社會公共利益與商事仲裁的司法監(jiān)督——對我國法院若干司法實踐的分析[J];北京仲裁;2006年01期
5 宋連斌;;豈伊地氣暖 自有歲寒心——評《最高人民法院關(guān)于適用〈中華人民共和國仲裁法〉若干問題的解釋》[J];北京仲裁;2006年04期
6 周江;;商事仲裁司法監(jiān)督模式的理論反思[J];北京仲裁;2006年04期
7 楊玲;;論我國重新仲裁的發(fā)回根據(jù)——以國內(nèi)法院實踐為例[J];北京仲裁;2007年01期
8 費宗yN;;費宗yN先生談仲裁法的修改[J];北京仲裁;2007年02期
9 宋連斌;;枉法仲裁罪批判[J];北京仲裁;2007年02期
10 謝新勝;;論爭中的已撤銷國際商事仲裁裁決之承認與執(zhí)行[J];北京仲裁;2007年03期
相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條
1 本報記者 陳永輝;[N];人民法院報;2006年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條
1 張楊;論國際商事仲裁裁決的撤銷制度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年
2 劉云甫;論國際商事仲裁裁決的撤銷[D];廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué);2006年
3 孫璐怡;國際商事仲裁裁決撤銷制度研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2007年
4 鄧勇;撤銷國際商事仲裁裁決法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2008年
5 程永強;論被撤銷外國仲裁裁決的承認與執(zhí)行[D];廈門大學(xué);2009年
6 劉麟;論我國國際商事仲裁裁決的司法追訴制度[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年
，本文編號：2164747
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2164747.html
