论美国集团仲裁制度

发布时间：2018-03-09 13:02

本文选题：集团仲裁　切入点：集团诉讼　出处：《浙江工商大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：消费者合同与雇佣合同中独特的仲裁条款以及美国最高法院对Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle的态度,开创美国集团仲裁的先河。同时美国两大仲裁机构发布了有关集团仲裁的程序性规则,从一定程度上为参与者提供了正当程序方面的保护,一方面是因为法律效果上,集团行为的裁决只有在提供了正当程序的前提下才会约束缺席的集团成员,另一方面也是因为对于这一新兴的制度的稳妥态度。集团仲裁对于我国而言,是一种完全陌生的制度。除了武汉大学的学者对此曾有一篇关于程序性介绍的文章以及广西大学的孟雁同学的一篇论文外没有关于集团仲裁的专门性文章。因此,本文通过对开创美国集团仲裁的经典案例的解析展开集团仲裁的发展过程,引出集团仲裁的概念并通过与其他相关制度的对比,使读者对集团仲裁有个较为清晰的理解。然后深入分析美国现存关于集团仲裁的混合方式与两大仲裁机构方式下提供的正当程序。这两种方式都通过大量的司法干预而解决正当程序的问题,这些方式都着理论和实践上的缺陷。理论上,允许司法参与仲裁违背了《联邦仲裁法案》规定的仲裁的效力,忽视了最高法院在Bazzle案的观点和态度；实践上来看,司法干预集团仲裁造成了期间的耽搁,费用的加剧,通过对仲裁员裁决的批准或者在仲裁员之外作出裁决而给仲裁员造成一种心理暗示从而仲裁员忽视了正当程序的重要性而把负担全部压在了法院上。本文结合美国的文化背景以及现存两大种方式存在的问题,提供了另外一种可选择的方式——自治方式及其规则。自治方式不仅符合《联邦仲裁法案》而且符合了Bazzle案下最高法院赋予仲裁员的决定集团仲裁的权利。仲裁员肩负提供正当程序的任务,除却仲裁员本身的能力问题,不仅是因为仲裁员更了解案情而且是可以减轻法院的负担。本文通过理论与实证相结合的研究方法,在国内外已有理论成果和实践经验的基础上,进行比较分析、归纳总结,就集团仲裁问题进行了较为深入、系统的分析和探讨后,对于我国是否可以引进集体仲裁制度做了仔细的思考。通过分析我国文化背景的下仲裁发展状况以及我国的优势,分析了我国引入集团仲裁的可行性问题。希望籍此研究,能够对我国仲裁立法与实践的发展有所裨益。
[Abstract]:The unique arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts and the attitude of the United States Supreme Court to Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle set the precedent for American Group Arbitration. At the same time, two major U.S. arbitration institutions issued procedural rules on group arbitration. To a certain extent, it provides due process protection for the participants, on the one hand, because of the legal effect, the ruling of the group behavior will bind the absent group members only if the due process is provided. On the other hand, it is also because of this emerging system of a sound attitude. Group arbitration for China, It is a completely unfamiliar system. There is no special article on group arbitration except for an article on procedural introduction by the scholars of Wuhan University and a paper by Meng Yan of Guangxi University. By analyzing the classic cases of American group arbitration, this paper develops the development process of group arbitration, leads to the concept of group arbitration and compares it with other relevant systems. Make the reader have a clearer understanding of group arbitration. Then analyze the existing mixed mode of group arbitration in the United States and the due process provided by the two major arbitration institutions. Both of these methods are provided through a large number of judicial processes. Intervene to resolve the issue of due process, In theory, allowing judicial participation in arbitration is contrary to the validity of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, ignoring the Supreme Court's views and attitudes in the Bazzle case. Judicial intervention group arbitration caused delays and increased costs, By approving an arbitrator's award or making an award in addition to an arbitrator, it creates a psychological implication to the arbitrator so that the arbitrator neglects the importance of due process and places the burden on the court. This paper combines the cultural background of the United States and the existing problems in two major ways. Provides an alternative form-autonomy and its rules. The autonomy is consistent not only with the Federal Arbitration Act, but also with the Supreme Court's right to decide on group arbitration in the Bazzle case. Entrusted with the task of providing due process, Aside from the arbitrator's own capacity, it is not only because the arbitrator has a better understanding of the case but also reduces the burden on the court. Through the combination of theory and empirical research methods, on the basis of the existing theoretical results and practical experience at home and abroad, this paper makes a comparative analysis, summarizes, and makes a more in-depth, systematic analysis and discussion on the problem of group arbitration. This paper makes a careful consideration on whether the collective arbitration system can be introduced into our country. By analyzing the development of arbitration under the cultural background of our country and the advantages of our country, this paper analyzes the feasibility of introducing group arbitration into our country. It can benefit the development of arbitration legislation and practice in China.
【学位授予单位】：浙江工商大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;DD915.7

【参考文献】