【摘要】：仲裁作為一種解決爭議的方式有著悠久的歷史，自歐洲中世紀(jì)晚期仲裁逐漸制度化，到1904年清政府頒行《商會簡明章程》正式將商事仲裁權(quán)賦予商會，無論在西方還是東方，，仲裁相對訴訟更加快捷高效解決爭議的特點貫穿始終。這種高效率的“一裁終局”形式較之訴訟，對程序上的公平性有著更高的要求。然而我國的相關(guān)法律和仲裁規(guī)則在或明示或默示地賦予了仲裁申請人撤回仲裁申請的權(quán)利時，并沒有詳細(xì)規(guī)定這種權(quán)利的使用限制，因此在實務(wù)中就出現(xiàn)了有失公平的情況，有申請人濫用此權(quán)利為自己謀取不正當(dāng)利益，而仲裁委員會和仲裁庭又礙于法規(guī)的不完善和一些其他因素掣肘，很難在問題出現(xiàn)時有所作為。這樣不僅置仲裁案件的被申請人于不公平的地位，同時也有損仲裁程序解決爭議的效率，因此本文研究的目的就是探究規(guī)制這種惡意仲裁的辦法，及時制止類似情況的繼續(xù)發(fā)生。 筆者所采用的主要研究方法分別是：調(diào)查法，利用實習(xí)的機(jī)會深入仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)有目的、有計劃地搜集研究對象的相關(guān)材料；比較法，對比國外相關(guān)先進(jìn)立法為完善國內(nèi)仲裁法律和仲裁規(guī)則建言獻(xiàn)策；文獻(xiàn)分析法，從大量的閱讀中，發(fā)現(xiàn)問題所在，為筆者的研究指明方向。研究本文的意義在于三點：一是促進(jìn)仲裁研究領(lǐng)域?qū)Τ绦騿栴}的重視；二是從仲裁實務(wù)中發(fā)現(xiàn)問題再回到仲裁實務(wù)中解決問題；三是為國內(nèi)仲裁立法和仲裁規(guī)則的完善提供建議。 本文是遵循如下邏輯思路對惡意仲裁問題進(jìn)行研究的：首先舉例說明何為惡意仲裁，并對其概念進(jìn)行界定；其次通過分析當(dāng)事人撤回仲裁申請的不同方式區(qū)分該權(quán)利的正當(dāng)行使與濫用，并闡明申請人這種規(guī)避法律的行為既損害了被申請人的合法權(quán)益，又造成了優(yōu)質(zhì)寶貴的仲裁資源的浪費(fèi)，同時最重要的是破壞了仲裁程序的公平，因而必須采取措施進(jìn)行規(guī)制；最后從比較法的角度分別借鑒我國臺灣地區(qū)的民事訴訟規(guī)則、《日本國仲裁法》以及《美國聯(lián)邦民事訴訟規(guī)則》中的相關(guān)規(guī)定，吸取各家立法長處，綜合考量之后提出一套遏制惡意仲裁的方案，即不僅要在仲裁法中明確規(guī)定當(dāng)事人享有撤回仲裁申請的權(quán)利，而且還要在規(guī)制惡意仲裁方面明確仲裁庭準(zhǔn)許或不予準(zhǔn)許當(dāng)事人撤回仲裁申請的條件，提高仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)再次受理已經(jīng)申請人撤回案件的門檻，同時為申請人違規(guī)撤回仲裁申請設(shè)定更高的代價。
[Abstract]:Arbitration as a way of settling disputes has a long history. From the late Middle Ages to the gradual institutionalization of arbitration in Europe, to the promulgation of the Concise Charter of the Chamber of Commerce by the Qing government in 1904, the right of commercial arbitration was formally granted to the Chamber of Commerce, whether in the West or in the East. Arbitration is more efficient than litigation to resolve disputes throughout the characteristics. This kind of high-efficiency "one-cut final" form has higher requirements on procedural fairness than litigation. However, the relevant laws and arbitration rules of our country have given the right of withdrawal of arbitration application to the applicant of arbitration explicitly or implicitly, and have not stipulated the restriction of the use of this right in detail. Therefore, in practice, there has been an unfair situation. Some applicants abuse this right to seek improper interests for themselves, and the arbitration commission and arbitral tribunal are unable to do anything when the problem arises due to the imperfection of the law and some other factors. In this way, not only the respondent of the arbitration case is placed in an unfair position, but also the efficiency of the arbitration procedure in resolving disputes is impaired. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the method of regulating this malicious arbitration. Stop the recurrence of similar situations in time. The main research methods adopted by the author are as follows: investigation method, using the practice opportunity to go deep into the arbitration institution to collect the relevant materials of the object of study in a planned way; Compared with the relevant foreign advanced legislation to improve the domestic arbitration law and arbitration rules, literature analysis, from a large number of reading, found the problem, for the author to point out the direction of the study. The significance of this study lies in three aspects: first, to promote the attention to the procedure in the field of arbitration research, second, to find problems from the practice of arbitration and then to solve the problems in the practice of arbitration; Third, to provide suggestions for the perfection of domestic arbitration legislation and arbitration rules. This paper follows the following logic to study the malicious arbitration: first of all, illustrate what is malicious arbitration, and define its concept; Secondly, by analyzing the different ways in which the parties withdraw the arbitration application, the author distinguishes the legitimate exercise and abuse of the right, and clarifies that the behavior of evading the law by the applicant not only damages the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent, It also causes the waste of high quality and precious arbitration resources, and the most important thing is to destroy the fairness of the arbitration procedure, so it is necessary to take measures to regulate the arbitration procedure. Finally, from the perspective of comparative law, we draw lessons from the relevant provisions of the rules of civil action in Taiwan, the Arbitration Law of Japan and the rules of Federal Civil procedure of the United States of America, and draw on the advantages of various legislations. After comprehensive consideration, it proposes a plan to deter malicious arbitration, that is, not only to specify in the arbitration law that the parties have the right to withdraw their application for arbitration, Moreover, in the aspect of regulating malicious arbitration, the conditions under which the arbitration tribunal permits or does not permit the parties to withdraw their arbitration applications should be made clear, so as to raise the threshold for arbitration institutions to accept the withdrawal of cases by the applicants again. At the same time, it sets a higher price for the applicant to withdraw the arbitration application illegally.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 顧維遐;;我們信賴仲裁嗎?——關(guān)于中國仲裁研究的英文文獻(xiàn)綜述[J];北京仲裁;2010年02期

2 張澤平;國際商事仲裁中的責(zé)任制度探析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2001年08期

3 丁偉;;一事不再理:仲裁制度中的“阿喀琉斯之踵”[J];東方法學(xué);2011年01期

4 顧維遐;;香港與內(nèi)地仲裁裁決司法審查制度的借鑒和融合[J];法學(xué)家;2009年04期

5 張旭;關(guān)于“一事不再理”原則的再思考[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年04期

6 王利明;海峽兩岸仲裁立法的比較研究[J];法學(xué)評論;2004年01期

7 譚兵;;試論我國的仲裁環(huán)境及其優(yōu)化[J];法學(xué)評論;2006年01期

8 梁智剛;徐進(jìn)靜;;論仲裁申請的撤回及其相關(guān)問題[J];法制與社會;2008年03期

9 趙鋼;略論仲裁申請人的撤案申請權(quán)[J];法學(xué)評論;2000年06期

10 趙秀文;;論仲裁規(guī)則的性質(zhì)及其與仲裁法之間的關(guān)系[J];河北法學(xué);2008年06期

本文編號：2264979