本文選題：香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu) + 臨時(shí)仲裁��； 參考：《深圳大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著前海深港現(xiàn)代服務(wù)業(yè)合作區(qū)的建立以及香港國際仲裁中心上海辦事處的揭牌,對(duì)于香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地提供仲裁服務(wù)的市場(chǎng)預(yù)期日益增多,但對(duì)于香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地進(jìn)行仲裁,有許多法律障礙仍待解決。對(duì)于香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地的仲裁裁決,由于對(duì)裁決性質(zhì)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不同,香港法院依據(jù)“裁決作出地”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)認(rèn)為不是香港裁決,同時(shí)依據(jù)香港《仲裁條例》的規(guī)定也不是內(nèi)地裁決。內(nèi)地法院依據(jù)“仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)”標(biāo)準(zhǔn),認(rèn)為該類裁決是香港裁決。依據(jù)內(nèi)地和香港的現(xiàn)行法律,對(duì)于香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地仲裁將會(huì)遇到許多法律障礙:第一,需要認(rèn)定當(dāng)事人約定的仲裁協(xié)議是否有效。對(duì)于仲裁協(xié)議是否有效需要先找到仲裁協(xié)議適用的法律來確定準(zhǔn)據(jù)法。對(duì)于仲裁協(xié)議的法律適用,內(nèi)地《涉外民事關(guān)系法律適用法》的規(guī)定對(duì)于仲裁協(xié)議的法律適用并不明確,對(duì)于仲裁協(xié)議有效性的認(rèn)定可能將出現(xiàn)互為矛盾的結(jié)果。第二,依據(jù)兩地現(xiàn)有法律,對(duì)于香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地作出的仲裁裁決在內(nèi)地和香港都不能得到法院的執(zhí)行,在這種情況下,仲裁作為解決民商事糾紛的重要法律措施之一將失去用武之地。第三,內(nèi)地法院和香港法院對(duì)于香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地的仲裁裁決不能撤銷,無法進(jìn)行有效的司法監(jiān)督。2016年,最高人民法院發(fā)布《最高人民法院關(guān)于為自由貿(mào)易試驗(yàn)區(qū)建設(shè)提供司法保障的意見》,是對(duì)內(nèi)地開展臨時(shí)仲裁和包括香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)的境外仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地開展仲裁活動(dòng)的突破性一步。借鑒該《意見》的思路,第一,建議內(nèi)地仲裁法對(duì)于仲裁協(xié)議有效性的認(rèn)定刪除“選定的仲裁委員會(huì)”的條件,使得選定香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地仲裁的仲裁協(xié)議有效。第二,建議內(nèi)地法律明確仲裁協(xié)議的法律適用。第三,建議內(nèi)地將裁決性質(zhì)由“仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)改為“裁決作出地”標(biāo)準(zhǔn),解決香港仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在內(nèi)地仲裁裁決不能執(zhí)行的障礙。最后,建議完善內(nèi)地法院對(duì)該類裁決的司法監(jiān)督,保障當(dāng)事人司法救濟(jì)的權(quán)利。
[Abstract]:With the establishment of the Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Cooperation Zone and the opening of the Shanghai Office of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center, the market for Hong Kong arbitration institutions to provide arbitration services in the mainland is expected to increase day by day. However, for Hong Kong arbitration institutions in the mainland, there are many legal obstacles to be resolved. With regard to the arbitral award of a Hong Kong arbitration institution in the mainland, due to the difference in the criteria for determining the nature of the award, the Hong Kong court, based on the "place of award" criterion, considered it not a Hong Kong award. At the same time, the provisions of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance are not mainland awards. The mainland court considered the award to be a Hong Kong award on the basis of the "arbitral institution" standard. According to the existing laws of the mainland and Hong Kong, there will be many legal obstacles for Hong Kong arbitration institutions to arbitrate in the mainland: first, it is necessary to determine whether the arbitration agreement agreed by the parties is valid or not. The law applicable to the arbitration agreement must be found to determine the applicable law for the validity of the arbitration agreement. For the legal application of arbitration agreement, the provisions of the law applicable to civil relations concerning foreign affairs in the mainland are not clear to the legal application of arbitration agreement, and the determination of the validity of arbitration agreement may result in contradictory results. Second, under the existing laws of the two places, neither the mainland nor Hong Kong can enforce arbitral awards made by Hong Kong arbitration institutions in the mainland. In such cases, Arbitration, as one of the important legal measures to settle civil and commercial disputes, will lose the opportunity of exerting its ability. Third, the courts of the mainland and the courts of Hong Kong cannot rescind the arbitral awards of Hong Kong arbitration institutions in the mainland, nor can they exercise effective judicial supervision. In 2016, The Supreme people's Court has issued the opinions of the Supreme people's Court on providing judicial protection for the construction of a free trade experimental area, which is to conduct temporary arbitration on the mainland and overseas arbitration institutions, including Hong Kong arbitration institutions, in the mainland. A breakthrough in arbitration. First, it is suggested that the mainland arbitration law should delete the condition of "selected arbitration committee" for the validity of arbitration agreement, so that the arbitration agreement selected for Hong Kong arbitration institution in the mainland should be valid. Secondly, it is suggested that mainland law should clarify the legal application of arbitration agreement. Thirdly, it is suggested that the mainland should change the nature of the award from the "arbitral institution" standard to the "place of award" standard, so as to resolve the obstacles that Hong Kong arbitration institutions cannot enforce an arbitral award in the mainland. Finally, it is suggested to improve the judicial supervision of this kind of ruling by the mainland courts and to protect the parties' right of judicial remedy.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：深圳大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張建;;中國商事仲裁的國際化挑戰(zhàn)——以最高人民法院的裁判觀點(diǎn)為視角[J];太原理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年05期

2 丁蓮芝;;當(dāng)代中國仲裁制度熱點(diǎn)法律問題博弈論[J];金陵法律評(píng)論;2014年01期

3 黃麗潔;;不規(guī)范仲裁協(xié)議的效力研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年13期

4 張圣翠;;論我國仲裁裁決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行制度的矯正[J];上海財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

5 韓平;;前海深港現(xiàn)代服務(wù)業(yè)合作區(qū)設(shè)立香港商事仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)的可行性研究[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年04期

6 馬占軍;;商事仲裁規(guī)則適用性法律問題研究[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年02期

7 陳力;;ICC國際仲裁院在我國作成仲裁裁決的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行——兼論《紐約公約》視角下的“非內(nèi)國裁決”[J];法商研究;2010年06期

8 趙秀文;;從寧波工藝品公司案看我國法院對(duì)涉外仲裁協(xié)議的監(jiān)督[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2010年05期

9 顧微微;;論國際商事仲裁中仲裁地點(diǎn)的作用[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2008年05期

10 趙秀文;論法律意義上的仲裁地點(diǎn)及其確定[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2005年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1805306