国际商事仲裁裁决效力论

发布时间：2018-05-03 22:29

本文选题：国际商事仲裁 + 仲裁裁决的效力　；参考：《西南政法大学》2012年博士论文

【摘要】：赋予仲裁裁决以效力既符合当事人的正当期望，也利于法院调处纠纷职能的实现，更是维护国际商事仲裁制度权威性的重要手段。达成上述共识并不困难，但在此共识之基础上，就仲裁裁决效力的内容而言，各国立法与实践仍存差异。并且，这种差异的存在必会影响国际商事仲裁制度的发展。如果上述理解可以成立，系统地构筑仲裁裁决效力的理论基础，逻辑地界分仲裁裁决效力的表现样式，实证地探究仲裁裁决效力的现实处境，是型塑仲裁裁决效力之理性认知与实践，并规划国际商事仲裁良性发展路径的必要前提。因此，本文尝试就以上与国际商事仲裁裁决效力密切相关的问题进行专门研究。本文共分五章，综合运用相关研究方法，从国际商事仲裁裁决效力的基础理论入手，明确仲裁裁决的效力来源，区分仲裁裁决的形式效力与实质效力，梳理我国商事仲裁发展的历史脉络，并以有关国家在具体效力制度上的实践经验为借鉴，就我国涉外商事仲裁裁决效力理论的建构与立法完善提出若干建议。第一章国际商事仲裁裁决效力的理论。主要界定了国际商事仲裁裁决的内涵，从“国际”、“商事”、“裁决”、“裁决效力”四方面，明确了本文的研究对象；论证了国际商事仲裁裁决效力取得的正当性，以国家与社会的分析框架、纠纷解决类型理论、仲裁价值与仲裁心理为理论分析模型；阐明了国际商事仲裁裁决的效力来源，包括当事人的合意与法律的授权。当事人的合意是仲裁程序启动的必要条件，国际商事仲裁裁决的国籍国法律是其效力的直接法律来源。第二章国际商事仲裁裁决的形式效力。国际商事仲裁裁决的形式效力，主要是指仲裁裁决在程序上产生的效力，包括拘束力与形式确定力。拘束力是裁决对仲裁庭产生的效力，仲裁裁决一经作出，仲裁庭即履行完职责，不得任意撤销或变更裁决，除非经当事人申请或仲裁庭自行决定，才可对裁决书中的文书错误进行修改。仲裁裁决拘束力的例外情况是法院要求仲裁庭重新仲裁，此时的仲裁庭因法院的命令，而获得再次考虑裁决的机会。在拘束力问题上，两大法系的表述尽管不同，但本质上并未分歧。形式确定力是产生实质效力的前提，是裁决对当事人产生的效力。两大法系在判决的形式确定力上有不同理解，大陆法系认为，只有在当事人不能通过上诉的方式再变更或撤销判决的情况下，判决才能对当事人产生确定力；而英美法系认为，判决一旦作出，就具有确定力。这种差异在国际商事仲裁制度中得到了融合，主要因为“一裁终局”是仲裁制度的基本原则。由此，如果当事人不能再通过仲裁内部的上诉程序或法律规定的上诉程序，对裁决效力提出异议，则仲裁裁决就获得了形式确定力，当事人受该裁决的约束。第三章国际商事仲裁裁决的实质效力（一）：既判力。国际商事仲裁裁决的实质效力是基于裁决的内容而产生的，裁决的既判力是其中最重要的内容之一。仲裁裁决的既判力在国内法与国际法中都有所规定，因此，就国际商事仲裁而言，法律选择也会对裁决的既判力产生影响。确定国际商事仲裁裁决的既判力，其首要目的是为了维护当事人的利益，其次才是为了国家和社会的利益而存在。既判力的作用体现在两个方面，一是在内容上产生拘束力的作用，二是在形式上产生一事不再理的作用。国际商事仲裁裁决的既判力较一般民事判决既判力问题更为复杂，因为需要处理仲裁庭与仲裁庭同步审理的问题，以及仲裁庭与法院间同步审理的问题。从程序经济与维护当事人利益的角度出发，应当禁止国际商事纠纷的当事人同时开辟两个“战场”，相关国家的实践如英国的“止诉禁令”，但该禁令在欧盟地区的适用也得到了限制。因而，在缺乏国际法规制的情况下，国际商事仲裁程序中“同步审理”问题的解决都将是一个难点。既判力是大陆法系程序法的概念，英美法系无既判力的概念，与其相近的是排除原则，包括请求排除与争点排除。国际商事仲裁裁决的既判力，重在研究其作用的范围。大陆法系将既判力的范围分为主观范围、客观范围和时间范围。既判力的主观范围，主要讨论既判力的作用及于哪些人的问题。由于国际商事仲裁的契约性质，仲裁协议的当事人与仲裁裁决的当事人具有同一性，只有成为仲裁协议的当事人，才可受仲裁裁决既判力的约束。所以，仲裁裁决既判力的主观范围具有相对性。既判力的客观范围，主要研究裁决中的哪些判断事项具有既判力。大陆法系采用诉讼标的的标准，英美法系采用“交易或事件”的标准，相比较而言，前者更注重当事人程序权利的保护，后者更强调纠纷的一次性解决。在这种理念下，大陆法系将判决书的结构分为判决主文与判决理由，只有判决主文中的判断才能产生既判力；英美法系却肯定了争点的排除效力，即使前后诉的当事人不同，前诉中确定的争点对后诉也有排除效力。目前，国际上的普遍做法是要求国际商事仲裁裁决应当附具理由，但现在不宜对该理由是否具有既判力进行笼统规定，应根据具体情况进行分析。既判力的时间范围，主要探讨既判力的产生从何时间点开始，该时间点前后判断的事项拘束力如何的问题。国际商事仲裁程序的灵活性，致使该问题的探讨在更大意义上是为了提高程序效率。第四章国际商事仲裁裁决的实质效力（二）：执行力。国际商事仲裁裁决的执行力包括“作为履行根据的效力”和“作为强制执行根据的效力”两个方面。英美法系与大陆法系在判决执行力的产生时间上有明显区分，英美法系对判决确定的理解是，判决一经作出即确定，因此也具有执行力；而大陆法系认为判决在形式确定力产生后，才具有执行力。另外，在强制执行的方式上，英美法系除了简易执行的方式外，还有普通法的执行方式。在《纽约公约》的推动下，外国仲裁裁决的执行率普遍提高。通常认为，在执行裁决之前，必然包含了对裁决效力的承认程序。然而，，仲裁裁决的承认程序具有独立的意义，并不只是执行程序的附属程序。仲裁裁决的强制执行不是一个孤立的环节，因为各国普遍规定了法院有权对仲裁裁决进行司法监督，主要有撤销仲裁裁决与拒绝执行仲裁裁决两种。这两种司法监督方式对仲裁裁决的效力产生不同影响，前者彻底否认仲裁裁决的效力，后者只是否认仲裁裁决的执行力。第五章我国涉外商事仲裁裁决效力理论及其反思性构建。我国涉外商事仲裁裁决效力理论的研究尚处于起步阶段，国内论著寥寥无几，总体来看，既缺乏科学系统的论证，也缺乏结合我国实际的理论建构。我国的现有立法与理论研究的现状相似，主要表现为法条内容的零散与不成熟。在对各主要国家仲裁裁决效力制度的比较分析之后，我国涉外商事仲裁裁决效力理论构建中的模式选择，究竟是以法律移植为主，还是应参照我国的现实情况？究竟是采用立法构建的单一形式，还是辅之以相关制度的联动改革？笔者从清末民初商会仲裁制度的起源、发展的概况及其与西方“灰脚法庭”的比较中，总结出的基本构建思路是，在完善我国仲裁法的同时，必须注意与民事诉讼法、民商法的协调，并深刻意识到商事仲裁制度的生长土壤在于市民社会。具体而言，我国可以采用大陆法系的理论与立法体系，将仲裁裁决的效力区分为形式效力与实质效力。形式效力的规定可以参照各国都比较成熟的立法经验，这其中的关键是如何明确裁决的形式确定力。笔者建议，宜根据民事诉讼制度改革的情况，逐步规范形式确定力的产生条件以及拒绝执行仲裁裁决的理由，明确法院对仲裁裁决实行司法监督的方式，为构建仲裁裁决的既判力与执行力奠定基础。
[Abstract]:It is not difficult to give the validity of the arbitral award to the parties' legitimate expectations, and also to the realization of the court's mediation of the dispute function. It is not difficult to achieve the authority of the international commercial arbitration system. But on the basis of this consensus, the legislation and practice of the arbitral award still differ from the legislation and practice. In addition, the existence of this difference will affect the development of the international commercial arbitration system. If the above understanding can be established, the theoretical basis of the validity of the arbitral award will be set up systematically, the logical boundary is divided into the expression pattern of the validity of the arbitral award, and the actual location of the validity of the arbitral award is empirically explored. It is the rational cognition and reality of the validity of the arbitration award. Therefore, this article tries to make a special study on the issues that are closely related to the effectiveness of the international commercial arbitration award.
This article is divided into five chapters. It combines the relevant research methods, starting with the basic theory of the effectiveness of international commercial arbitration award, clarifies the source of the validity of the arbitral award, differentiating the form effect and the substantial effect of the arbitration award, combing the historical context of the development of the commercial arbitration in China, and taking the practical experience of the country in the specific effectiveness system as a loan. The author puts forward some suggestions on the construction and legislative perfection of the theory of validity of foreign commercial arbitral awards in China.
The first chapter is the theory of the validity of international commercial arbitral award. It defines the connotation of international commercial arbitral award. It defines the research object of this article from four aspects: "international", "business", "Adjudication" and "validity of Adjudication". It demonstrates the legitimacy of the validity of the international commercial arbitration award, and the analysis framework of the state and society, and the dispute. The theory of solving the theory of type, the value of arbitration and the psychology of arbitration as the theoretical analysis model, and clarifying the source of the validity of the arbitration award of international commercial arbitration, including the consent of the parties and the authorization of the law. The parties' agreement is the necessary condition for the initiation of the arbitration procedure, and the national law of the international commercial arbitration award is the direct legal source of its effectiveness.
The second chapter is the formal validity of the arbitral award of international commercial arbitration. The formal effect of the arbitral award of international commercial arbitration mainly refers to the effect produced by the arbitral award in the procedure, including the binding force and the form of determination. The binding force is the effect of the arbitral award on the arbitration tribunal. The arbitral tribunal shall not revoke or change the arbitral tribunal after the arbitral award has been made. More adjudication, unless the party application or the arbitral tribunal decides to make a revision of the error in the verdict, the exception of the arbitral award is the court's request for the arbitration tribunal to re arbitrate, and the arbitral tribunal at this time obtains the opportunity to reconsider the adjudication because of the court's order. On the issue of restraint, the statement of the two legal systems In spite of the differences, there are no differences in nature. The form determination force is the prerequisite for the substantial effect and the effect of the decision on the parties. The two legal systems have different understandings on the determination of the form of the judgment. The continental law system holds that the judgment can only be judged if the party can not be changed or revoked by the way of appeal. In the Anglo American law system, the Anglo American legal system believes that once the decision is made, it has a definite force. This difference has been merged in the international commercial arbitration system, mainly because "the end of a decision" is the basic principle of the arbitration system. If an objection is made to the validity of the award, the arbitral award will be formally determined and the party shall be bound by the award.
The third chapter: the substantive validity of the arbitral award of International Commercial Arbitration (1): res judicata. The substantive validity of the arbitral award of international commercial arbitration is based on the content of the adjudication. The verdict is one of the most important contents. The res judicata of the arbitral award is stipulated in both domestic and international law. Therefore, the law of international commercial arbitration is concerned. The choice of law will also have an impact on the verdict of the adjudication. To determine the res judicata of the international commercial arbitral award, its primary purpose is to maintain the interests of the parties, followed by the existence of the interests of the state and the society. The role of the res judicata is embodied in two aspects, one is the binding force in the content, and the two is in the form of production. An international commercial arbitral award is more complex than the general civil judgment, because it needs to deal with the issue of simultaneous trial between the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral tribunal and the question of simultaneous trial between the arbitral tribunal and the court. The parties to the dispute have opened two "battlefields" at the same time, and the practice of the relevant countries, such as the British "Prohibition of prosecution", has also been restricted in the application of the European Union. Therefore, in the absence of international law and regulation, the solution of the "synchronous trial" in the international commercial arbitration procedure will be a difficult point.
The res judicata is the concept of the procedural law of the continental law system. There is no concept of res judicata in Anglo American legal system, which is close to the exclusion principle, including the exclusion of requests and the exclusion of contention points. The jurisdiction of international commercial arbitral awards is to study the scope of its role. The scope of the res judicata is divided into subjective scope, objective scope and time range. The subjective scope of the subject, mainly discussing the role of the res judicata and the question of which person. Due to the nature of the contract of international commercial arbitration, the parties to the arbitration agreement have the same character as the parties to the arbitral award, only the parties that become arbitral agreements can be bound by the force of the arbitral award. Therefore, the arbitral award has the subjective scope of the res judicata. It is relative. The objective scope of the res judicata, which mainly studies the judgment in the adjudication, has the res judicata. The continental law system adopts the standard of the litigant and the standard of "transaction or event" in the Anglo American law system. In comparison, the former pays more attention to the protection of the procedural rights of the parties, and the latter emphasizes the one-off settlement of the dispute. Under the concept, the civil law system divides the sentence structure into the judgment subject and the judgment reason, only the judgment in the main text of the judgment can produce the res judicata; the Anglo American law system affirms the exclusion effect of the dispute point, even if the front and back parties are different, the dispute points in the former lawsuit also have the exclusion effect to the post prosecution. The international commercial arbitration award should be given a reason, but it is not appropriate to make a general provision on the validity of the justification for this reason. It should be analyzed in accordance with the specific circumstances. The time range of the res judicata is mainly discussed at the beginning of the result of the res judicata and the problem of the binding force of the matters before and after the time point. The flexibility of arbitration proceedings leads to the discussion of this issue in a larger sense in order to improve procedural efficiency.
The fourth chapter is the substantive validity of the international commercial arbitral award (two): executive force. The enforcement force of the international commercial arbitration award includes two aspects: "the effectiveness of performing the basis" and "the effectiveness as the force to enforce the enforcement". There is a clear distinction between the Anglo American Law and the continental law system in the time of the execution of the judgment, and the Anglo American law system is true to the verdict The understanding is that the judgment is determined once it is made and therefore has the power of execution; and the continental law system holds that the judgment has its enforcement power after the determination of the form. In addition, in the way of enforcement, the Anglo American law, in addition to the way of simple execution, has the way of general law enforcement. Under the impetus of the New York convention, the foreign arbitration is decided. The rate of execution is generally raised. It is generally believed that the recognition procedure of the validity of the award must be included before the enforcement of the award. However, the recognition procedure of the arbitral award is of an independent meaning and is not only a subsidiary procedure of the procedure. The enforcement of the arbitral award is not a separate link, since the courts generally stipulate the right of the court. In judicial supervision of arbitral award, there are two main types of arbitration award and refusal to execute arbitral award. These two kinds of judicial supervision have different effects on the validity of arbitral award, the former completely denies the validity of arbitration award, the latter only denies the execution of arbitral award.
The fifth chapter is the theory of the validity of arbitration award for foreign commercial arbitration in China and its reflective construction. The research on the validity of the arbitral award in China's foreign commercial arbitration is still in its infancy. There are few domestic treatises. On the whole, it lacks the scientific system and the theoretical construction of our country. The present situation is similar, mainly manifested by the fragmentary and immature contents of the law. After the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the arbitral awards in the major countries, the choice of the model of the theory of the validity of the arbitral award in China's foreign commercial arbitration is based on the law transplant, or should we refer to the reality of our country? The basic construction idea of the author from the origin of the arbitration system of the chamber of Commerce of the chamber of Commerce in the late Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Qing Dynasty and the comparison with the western "grey Tribunal" is the basic construction idea, which must be paid attention to the coordination of the civil procedure law, the civil and commercial law and the profound awareness of the coordination of the civil procedure law and the civil and commercial law. The growing soil of the commercial arbitration system lies in the civil society. In particular, China can adopt the theory and legislative system of the continental law system to distinguish the validity of the arbitral award into formal and substantive effectiveness. The provisions of the formal effectiveness can refer to the mature legislative experience of all countries, and the key is how to make clear the form of the decision. The author suggests that, according to the situation of the reform of the civil procedure system, we should gradually standardize the producing conditions of the form of determination and the reasons for refusing to execute the arbitral award, and make clear the way of judicial supervision by the court to the arbitral award, and lay the foundation for the establishment of the res judicata and the execution of the arbitral award.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D997.4

【参考文献】