【摘要】：公共政策是一個(gè)非常復(fù)雜、模糊且廣泛的概念,在不同的學(xué)科中有著不同的含義和解釋。國(guó)際商事仲裁中的公共政策體現(xiàn)的是特定國(guó)家在特定時(shí)期、特定問題上的根本利益,是各國(guó)為保護(hù)基本的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、法律制度和道德觀念的“安全閥”。然而各國(guó)的國(guó)情不同,對(duì)最基本原則和利益的認(rèn)識(shí)不一致,各國(guó)立法和國(guó)際公約也都未對(duì)公共政策作出明確的解釋和界定,導(dǎo)致在公共政策具體適用中出現(xiàn)差異。國(guó)際商事仲裁制度的基礎(chǔ)在于當(dāng)事人意思自治,而公共政策一定程度上抑制這種自治性。研究國(guó)際商事仲裁中的公共政策,不論是對(duì)本國(guó)根本利益的保護(hù),還是對(duì)更好的構(gòu)建商事仲裁價(jià)值體系都是有意義的。 公共政策在國(guó)際商事仲裁領(lǐng)域的適用是非常廣泛的,本文從可仲裁性、仲裁法律適用、承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決三方面詳細(xì)論述公共政策的適用�？芍俨眯苑矫嬷饕芯抗舱咴诜磯艛酄�(zhēng)議、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)爭(zhēng)議、商業(yè)賄賂合同爭(zhēng)議的適用,反映目前可仲裁性事項(xiàng)范圍的不斷擴(kuò)大,公共政策也逐漸放開對(duì)其的限制。根據(jù)歐美國(guó)家最近的實(shí)踐和立法表明,公共政策和可仲裁性的關(guān)系正逐步呈現(xiàn)出相脫離的趨勢(shì)。仲裁法律適用方面主要從公共政策對(duì)仲裁協(xié)議法律適用、仲裁程序法律適用、仲裁實(shí)體法律適用的限制展開論述。公共政策在承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行商事仲裁裁決領(lǐng)域的運(yùn)用是最廣泛的,本文從《紐約公約》和《示范法》入手,再到《關(guān)于以公共政策為由拒絕執(zhí)行國(guó)際仲裁裁決的最終報(bào)告》,分析公共政策適用的限制,有助于更加準(zhǔn)確的援引公共政策。 中國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)立法和司法實(shí)踐中都有公共政策的體現(xiàn),但是與其他仲裁走在前列的國(guó)家和地區(qū)相比,關(guān)于公共政策立法表達(dá)不一致、可仲裁性限制較多等方面表明仍存在需要改進(jìn)的地方,立法的缺陷將對(duì)司法實(shí)踐帶來一定的負(fù)面影響。本文分別從可仲裁性、仲裁法律適用、承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決三方面分析公共政策在中國(guó)適用的現(xiàn)狀,并提出了進(jìn)一步的參考意見。
[Abstract]:Public policy is a very complex, vague and broad concept with different meanings and interpretations in different disciplines. The public policy in international commercial arbitration embodies the fundamental interests of a particular country in a specific period and a particular issue, and is a "safety valve" for countries to protect their basic political, economic, legal system and moral concepts. However, the national conditions of different countries, the most basic principles and interests of the understanding is inconsistent, national legislation and international conventions have not made a clear interpretation and definition of public policy, leading to differences in the specific application of public policy. The basis of international commercial arbitration system is party autonomy, which is restrained to some extent by public policy. It is meaningful to study the public policy in international commercial arbitration, not only to protect the fundamental interests of our country, but also to construct a better value system of commercial arbitration. The application of public policy in the field of international commercial arbitration is very extensive. This paper discusses the application of public policy in detail from three aspects: arbitrability, application of arbitration law and recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards. In the aspect of arbitrability, the application of public policy in antitrust disputes, intellectual property rights infringement disputes and commercial bribery contract disputes is mainly studied, which reflects the expanding scope of arbitrability matters and the gradual liberalization of public policy restrictions on them. According to the recent practice and legislation in Europe and America, the relationship between public policy and arbitrability is gradually showing a trend of separation. The application of arbitration law is mainly discussed from the public policy on the application of the law of arbitration agreement, the application of law of arbitration procedure and the limitation of the application of law of arbitration entity. The application of public policy in the field of recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitral awards is the most extensive. This paper starts with the New York Convention and the Model Law, and then to the final report on refusal to enforce International Arbitral Awards on the grounds of Public Policy. Analysis of the limitations of public policy application will help to invoke public policy more accurately. China's domestic legislation and judicial practice both reflect public policy, but compared with other countries and regions where arbitration is at the forefront, the expression of public policy legislation is inconsistent. The limitation of arbitrability indicates that there are still some problems to be improved, and the defects of the legislation will bring some negative effects to the judicial practice. This paper analyzes the current situation of the application of public policy in China from the aspects of arbitrability, application of arbitration law, recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards, and puts forward further suggestions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 趙秀文;;從永寧公司案看公共政策作為我國(guó)法院拒絕執(zhí)行外國(guó)仲裁裁決的理由[J];法學(xué)家;2009年04期

2 張艾清;荷蘭商事仲裁法律與實(shí)踐若干問題探究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2000年01期

3 張艾清;;國(guó)際商事仲裁中公共政策事項(xiàng)的可仲裁性問題研究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2007年06期

4 肖永平,朱克鵬;論強(qiáng)制性規(guī)則與公共政策對(duì)國(guó)際商事仲裁的影響[J];國(guó)際貿(mào)易問題;1997年09期

5 徐琳;;國(guó)際商事仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行中的公共政策[J];河北法學(xué);2009年07期

6 徐妤;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁的理論與實(shí)踐[J];仲裁研究;2008年01期

7 楊玲;;國(guó)際商事仲裁公共政策司法界定的實(shí)踐與發(fā)展[J];政治與法律;2010年11期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 陳晶;國(guó)際商事仲裁程序法律適用研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

2 張貝;論公共政策在國(guó)際商事仲裁中的適用[D];武漢大學(xué);2005年

3 王翠玉;國(guó)際商事仲裁中公共政策事項(xiàng)的可仲裁性理論探究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

4 胡丹;國(guó)際商事仲裁法律適用中的公共政策[D];湘潭大學(xué);2009年

5 倪鑫;國(guó)際商事仲裁中的公共政策問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2428196