论国际商事仲裁中涉及贿赂的合同的仲裁

在国际商事交易实践中存在着贿赂等腐败现象 ,一些商事合同的实际目的是向外国政府官员行贿。由于这些涉及贿赂的合同中常包含有仲裁条款 ,因此给仲裁界与司法界带来了理论与实践上的难题。本文对涉及贿赂的合同争议的可仲裁性、仲裁庭对涉及贿赂的合同争议的审理以及基于贿赂合同的仲裁裁决的承认与执行等几方面问题进行了探讨 ,作者认为 :涉及贿赂的合同争议具有可仲裁性 ;根据应适用的法律 ,如果仲裁庭认定存在贿赂的事实 ,应认定此类合同无效 ;对于涉及贿赂问题的仲裁裁决 ,如果法院认定情况属实 ,应以公共政策为由 ,拒绝承认与执行     

论国际商事仲裁中法院的作用

一、国际商事仲裁庭与法院的伙伴关系如果当事人之间及其与仲裁庭之间自始至终都能保持充分友好的合作关系,则国际商事仲裁活动不需要任何国家法院的介入。但事实上,仲裁过程中往往纷争迭起。为了保证国际商事仲裁的顺利进行,国际商事仲裁庭必须与国家法院建立伙伴关系。首先,国际商事仲裁具有一定的局限性。主要就在于国际商事仲裁庭是民间机构,仲裁管辖权不具有强制性,因而仲裁庭不具有充分的权力确保仲裁程序适当和有效的进行,也不具有强制执行仲裁裁决的权力。为确保国际商事争议能得到切实有效的解决,并确保当事人依据仲裁裁决…     

论国际商事仲裁的"非国内"规则在中国的适用

在当代国际商事仲裁中,除了特定国家的内国法体系以外,"非国内"规则(denational rules)也经常作为仲裁实体法被当事人或者仲裁庭选择适用,以解决国际民商事纠纷。中国的1994年《仲裁法》并没有对涉外仲裁,即国际商事仲裁实体法的适用作出明确规定。因此在中国的国际商事仲裁中适用"非国内"规则在理论和实践中都存在争论和模糊不清之处。     

国际商事仲裁管辖权若干法律问题探析

一、国际商事仲裁音辖权的法律特征国际商事仲裁管辖权是国际商事仲裁庭根据国际商事交易当事人之间的仲裁协议,对他们之间的商事争议居中评断是非曲直并作出裁决的权力。与国际民事诉讼管辖权相比,国际商事仲裁管辖权具有以下几个特征：（一）属于协议管辖权。它是建立在国际商事仲裁协议的基础上的。如果仲裁协议不存在或是无效,仲裁庭就不可能具有对有关商事争议的管辖权。而国际民事诉讼管辖权起源于国家的司法主权．具有强制性,不以当事人之间的协议作为管辖的前提条件。虽然国际民事诉讼中也允许当事人协议选择管辖法院,但必须是…     

国际投资条约的仲裁异议研究

投资条约仲裁在当今的国际投资争议中运用的越来越广泛,与传统的商事仲裁相比,投资条约仲裁体现的是一种"拟制的合意"。从投资条约仲裁管辖权的理论基础入手对仲裁异议作出两种划分,并结合管辖权异议和受理可能性异议的仲裁实例分析了仲裁庭应审慎地对仲裁异议作出审查,以防止管辖权的扩张。     

国内仲裁机构规则中的临时措施研究

“临时措施”(Interim Measures)是国际商事仲裁程序中一个重要的理论与实践问题.本文通过分析比较各国仲裁庭临时措施制度以及其主要执行地法院的立法,阐述了目前在我国两大国际仲裁机构——上海国际仲裁中心和中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会2014年所,布规则中临时措施的积极意义,深入剖析了目前我国国内仲裁机构规则中初现的临时措施特点与现存“瑕疵”,论证了加快《仲裁法》等相关法律法规修订的必要性,并提出了中国法院在执行仲裁庭临时措施的过程中应该更加尊重国际通行标准、切实完善我国国际商事仲裁制度、促进国际仲裁在中国的长远发展等相应对策.     

论缺员仲裁的限制

在国际商事仲裁中,如果当事人约定仲裁庭由多名仲裁员组成,一般应由这多名仲裁员组成的仲裁庭完成所有的仲裁程序。如果在仲裁过程中,出现一名仲裁员无法履行职责的情形,则应当填补该仲裁员的空缺,组成新的完整的仲裁庭,以完成仲裁程序。但是,国际商事仲裁实践中却存在另一种做法,即当一名仲裁员无法履行职责时,不填补该仲裁员的空缺,而由剩余仲裁员组成的缺员仲裁庭继续完成仲裁程序。这种特殊做法就是通常所称的缺员仲裁。     

论国际商事仲裁机构程序管理权扩张的正当性

国际商事仲裁机构程序管理权扩张现象,以通过当事人无法合意排除或修改的仲裁规则授予自身多项主动管控、干预仲裁庭及仲裁程序的权力为典型表现,受到了国内外学者的普遍关注。反对观点对其正当性提出质疑,认为该现象与作为国际商事仲裁基本原则的意思自治存在冲突,且聚焦于仲裁机构程序管理权扩张过程中纳入的具体权力,其对仲裁庭组成及仲裁裁决起草的干预均与国际商事仲裁传统原则或理念相悖。但事实上,从规范主义视角,基于仲裁机构与当事人间的契约关系,仲裁机构程序管理权的扩张与意思自治原则的冲突只是虚假的表象,亦与《纽约公约》第5条第1款(d)项相适配;从功能主义视角,仲裁机构程序管理权的扩张有利于解决仲裁系统效益所面临的困境,亦与仲裁机构的功能演变相顺应。不论从规范主义还是功能主义视角,国际商事仲裁机构程序管理权扩张的正当性均可证成。     

论我国仲裁庭自裁管辖权原则及其确立

仲裁庭自裁管辖权原则目前已经得到世界各国的广泛接受和采纳,成为现代国际商事仲裁法的重要理论和实践。我国仲裁立法应当采纳国际商事仲裁的先进理论,改变现有的仲裁庭管辖权确认模式,将确认管辖权的权力从仲裁委员会归还给仲裁庭,实现自裁管辖权,以保持和国际商事仲裁的立法和实践同步。     

国际商事仲裁权的性态

“三大主体、两大关系”是对国际商事仲裁结构的形象概括,纠纷双方当事人和仲裁庭这三大主体之间构成两大关系,即双方当事人的分裂对抗关系、仲裁庭和双方当事人之间的裁决服从关系。从这两大关系中可引申出国际商事仲裁权的两类性态,即程序选择权和社会司法权。权利性与权力性、契约性和司法性构成国际商事仲裁权性质的两对基本范畴,在历史进程和仲裁进程中展现出国际商事仲裁权性态的交互辩证运动。     

论国际投资仲裁正当性危机

当前,国际投资仲裁裁决不一致、国际投资仲裁程序损害东道国主权的现象时有发生,使得人们对国际投资仲裁的正当性产生了质疑。造成国际投资仲裁裁决不一致的主要原因在于BIT特定条款规定较模糊、国际投资仲裁实践仍不够丰富。造成国际投资仲裁裁决损害东道国主权的主要原因在于缔约国签订了高度自由的BIT,让渡了过多的主权。各缔约国签订BIT时可尝试就一些重要条款的含义与适用标准做出更明确的规定,并用好＂四大安全阀＂,维护自身主权免受不合理的侵犯。同时国际投资仲裁制度也应通过增强透明度、设立合并仲裁等方式弥补程序本身的不足。     

International Arbitration and Judicial Politics in Authoritarian States

This article uses the case of Sudan to show how authoritarian regimes benefit from embracing international arbitration, allowing them to maintain domestic control and attract foreign investment. International arbitration ensures that foreign‐investment disputes are resolved outside of domestic purview, obviating the need for nondemocratic states to create independent courts. Research on judicial politics in authoritarian regimes has largely overlooked those private and extra‐judicial pathways—international arbitration tribunals—that illiberal regimes have been taking. Similarly, research in international commercial law has neglected domestic politics, overlooking arbitration's consequences for domestic stakeholders. Promoting international arbitration without paying heed to its side effects can unwittingly help illiberal regimes, particularly in weak states, to continue to repress their judiciaries and curtail the development of domestic legal institutions and the rule of law.     

Difficulties Confronted by ICSID Tribunals in Deciding International Investment Corruption Cases and Possible Solutions

The issue of corruption has attracted increasing attention in the study and practice of international investment law during recent years. After taking prudent consideration of the corruption defense invoked by the host states in some international investment arbitration cases involved with corruption, International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals accordingly determined the final awards. However, some parts of the arbitral jurisprudence aroused strong criticism, especially with regard to the ICSID tribunals’ reasoning that arbitrators have no jurisdiction over corruption-tainted international investments. The ICSID tribunals are legitimately supposed to exercise their jurisdiction and are lawfully obliged to probe into the nature of corrupt activities. The tribunals are strongly expected to adopt a balanced approach in deciding the merits and fairly weighing the obligations, rights, and interests of both disputing parties. It is preferable to strengthen the collaborative interaction between ICSID proceedings and domestic anti-corruption enforcement mechanisms when it comes to combating corrupt international investment activities. Existing international treaties (or specific treaty provisions) on combating corruption in international business transactions and calling for international cooperation, alongside domestic anti-corruption enforcement legislation, have actually laid solid legal foundations for the establishment of such an anti-corruption coordinative mechanism between ICSID and domestic corruption regulatory authorities on the global level.     

国际投资仲裁中最惠国条款的适用和管辖权的新发展

国际投资仲裁中某一投资条约规定的最惠国条款能否延伸适用于其他投资条约规定的仲裁程序是近年来的一个热门话题,仲裁裁决的实践给出了两种完全不同的答案,并且依据《维也纳条约法公约》对有关条款进行解释几乎是所有仲裁庭必做的工作.但是近两年的裁决似乎有一种将最惠国条款扩大适用于仲裁程序的趋势,尽管不同仲裁庭甚至同一仲裁庭的不同仲裁员对于同一问题可能会有不同的观点.我国签订的投资条约应当明确最惠国条款和仲裁程序的适用范围,以及规定条约不溯及既往原则等.     

Measuring gross disproportion in environmental precaution to establish regulatory expropriation and quantum of compensation in international investment arbitration

This article applies a new methodology for the assessment of environmental risk prevention expenditure to the adjudication process of international investment arbitration. The Disproportion Factor Model can be implemented by investment arbitration tribunals to evaluate the reasonableness of environmental regulations imposed by host states that have a damaging impact upon foreign investment activity, such as would be the subject for a claim of indirect or regulatory expropriation. In this setting the Disproportion Factor Model can help illustrate whether a host state measure is unreasonable and in that sense should engage the investor’s entitlement to compensation under international law. It also acts as an objective guide to the setting of an appropriate quantum of compensation for the injured investor by reference to the environmental benefits that the regulation aimed to achieve relative to their costs, as evaluated by a rational decision-maker. The formula should be consequently viewed as a useful tool in judicial analysis by international investment tribunals.     

论国际投资争议的“强制性仲裁”

传统理论与实践都认为，自愿性是仲裁的基础和核心。但随着国际社会与国际交往的发展。在国际投资领域已经开始出现了强制性仲裁。国际投资领域中的强制性仲裁的出现，对于国际商事仲裁的发展具有一定的影响，是国际商事仲裁发展的新动向，而且随着发达国家通过投资条约及其他国际条约日益加强对投资者的保护。以及发展中国家日益加强对外国投资的吸引力度，强制性仲裁可能会有更大的发展。其所涉及范围也可能从投资领域扩及到其他领域。     

新加坡法下仲裁协议的效力研究

仲裁协议的效力由其所适用的法律决定,不同国家或地区的法律在认定仲裁协议的法律效力时所采取的标准亦有所区别.从新加坡有关仲裁协议的成文法规范出发,结合新加坡法院就仲裁协议法律效力争议所作的判例,在研究新加坡法院对“病理性仲裁协议”效力认定时所采取的基本原则后,认为新加坡法律具有“亲仲裁”特性.这是新加坡在国际商事仲裁和国际海事仲裁领域取得令人瞩目发展成果的重要原因之一.     

The Last Bite of the BITs—Supremacy of EU Law versus Investment Treaty Arbitration

According to Article 267 TFEU, national courts of the EU Member States can (and sometimes must) ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation and application of Community law, including international treaties and recommendations, and on the validity of Community secondary legislation. In this way, it is ensured that EU citizens are treated equally throughout the Union. However, this is not applicable when it comes to arbitral proceedings, be they commercial or investment arbitrations. The Court does not accept references for preliminary rulings from arbitral tribunals. For this reason, respondent states in international arbitral proceedings have argued that arbitration and EU law are utterly incompatible. In their submissions as respondents in arbitral proceedings, EU Member States have argued that, as a result of EU accession, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been automatically terminated. In subsidiary, they sometimes claim that, due to their incompatibility with EU law, BITs cannot apply. But if BITs are not applicable anymore, there are few remedies left for investors within the EU.     

Dissenting and Concurring Opinions in International Investment Arbitration: How the Arbitrators Frame Their Need to Differ

Though still relatively infrequent, the issuing of dissenting and concurring opinions is becoming more common in international investment arbitration. This paper reviews the reasons for delivering separate opinions envisaged in the bibliography on investment arbitration, comparing these with practices in the related area of commercial arbitration. Fourteen recent separate opinions appended to ICSID arbitration awards and decisions are then analysed to determine how the arbitrators themselves explain why they have taken the drastic step of issuing a separate opinion. Potential areas of convergence between investment arbitration and commercial arbitration practice will be addressed.     

国际投资条约仲裁中投资者与东道国权益保护平衡问题研究

在国际投资条约及其仲裁中,如何在投资者和东道国权益保护之间寻求合理的平衡,是目前国际投资领域关注的热点问题之一。要合理平衡二者间的关系,应该在现行的投资条约中设置必要的例外条款,为东道国维护国家安全和公共利益预留必要的空间;应改进和完善投资条约中公平公正待遇、最惠国待遇、保护伞等核心条款的规定,防止或限制仲裁庭对其作扩大解释;应改进与完善投资条约仲裁的程序规则,使其能够满足投资者与东道国间投资争端解决的需要。