论仲裁第三人

社会纠纷的复杂性导致多方当事人争议在仲裁实践中遭遇尴尬。仲裁协议相对性的现实障碍,催生了学者们对“仲裁第三人”制度的设想。作者首先澄清了理论界某些对“仲裁第三人”认识上的误区,总结并深刻评析了正反两个方面的观点,结合对国外立法和仲裁规则的解读,实证地分析了最高人民法院公布的典型案例,在此基础上进一步分析了仲裁制度的优越性并得出结论:仲裁中不宜设立第三人制度。     

论法律意义上的仲裁地点及其确定

The paper studies the concept of the place of arbitration in comparing with the legislation and practices of international commercial arbitration. It also stresses on the connection and distinction between the place of arbitration, the place of hearing, and the place where the arbitration tribunal deliberates the case, as well as the method of deciding the place of arbitration. The author also analyzes the current legislation and practices of the determination on the place of arbitration in China. The paper pointed out that it is important in both theory and practice to promote international arbitration in China and amend domestic arbitration legislation in determing place of arbitration properly. Zhao Xiuwen, professor, has been teaching international business law in the law school of Renmin University of China since 1984. She used to be a Fulbright research scholar in Georgetown Law Center of George Washington University and other universities (USA), and as a visiting professor in universities and research institutes (UK, Germany, Italy, Austria and Australia). She also works in the panel of China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) and some local arbitration commissions in China. She is the author of several books and dozens of articles in the field of international business law and commercial arbitration, i.e. arbitration system in Hong Kong, international economic law, private international law, copyright, international commercial arbitration, international economic and trade arbitration law, etc.     

最高人民法院裁判、司法解释的法律地位

The decisions and the legislative interpretations of judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court of China can be considered as a part of Mainland China’s customary law, and carried by decisions and judicial interpretations. Customary law is the very source of its normal force and they are supposed to be an informal source of the law for they have the required characteristics for substantiating customary law. Accordingly, the legislative judicial interpretations and decisions of the Supreme Court that are qualified to be promulgated in the Gazette of the Supreme Court should be standardized by the requisites of customary law and have the quality supposed to be universally fair. Cao Shibing is a senior judge of the Supreme Court of China majoring in civil law, and he was awarded the doctorate of law by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Till now, he has published an amount of academic works, for instance, On Anti-monopoly Law (1996), Resolve of the Problems in the Suretyship Law of China and its Prospect (2001), On Insolvency Law of China (2003), and his translated book in Chinese (1998) —The Death of Contract (originally written by Grant Gilmore in 1995).     

关于提单仲裁条款效力若干问题的思考

在阐明提单的概念与功能的基础上,依据中国现行法律规定,较为深入地讨论了提单仲裁条款在托运人与承运人之间及其在提单受让人与承运人之间的不同效力,进而还讨论了并入提单的租约仲裁条款的效力问题。同时对最高人民法院于2 0 0 3年12月31日公布的《关于人民法院处理涉外仲裁及外国仲裁案件的若干规定(征求意见稿)》的有关内容提出了修改意见。     

我国仲裁协议效力认定的新发展——评《最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国仲裁法》若干问题的解释》相关规定

《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》对仲裁协议的"书面形式"、仲裁事项所包含的内容、瑕疵仲裁协议效力的认定、仲裁当事人变更或者债权债务转让时仲裁协议对权利义务继受者的效力问题、仲裁协议的独立性、仲裁协议效力争议案件的管辖及程序要求、当事人对仲裁协议效力异议的放弃、涉外仲裁协议效力审查法律适用等诸多问题作出了明确解释。该司法解释限制了仲裁协议无效的情形,规范了法院审查仲裁协议效力的程序,明确了涉外仲裁协议效力法律适用等问题,反映了我国仲裁协议效力认定的最新发展。     

从奥特克案看外国临时仲裁裁决在我国的承认与执行

德国奥特克公司向我国法院申请承认与执行由临时仲裁庭在伦敦做出的仲裁裁决的案例,不仅涉及临时仲裁机构裁决的法律效力及其在我国的承认与执行问题,还涉及包括临时仲裁机构与常设仲裁机构裁决的效力、含有仲裁条款的合同与仲裁协议的成立时间、仲裁条款独立原则在仲裁与审判实践中的解释以及如何确定国际商事仲裁程序的适用法律等有关仲裁的基本理论与实践问题。对这些问题的探究有助于解决临时仲裁庭仲裁裁决在我国的承认与执行问题。     

The new progress in Chinese Arbitration Law

The Chinese Arbitration Law of 1995, together with the Civil Procedure Law and other sources of arbitration laws, is served as the legal bases for the Chinese arbitration system. Compared with advanced arbitration systems in the world, there still exist some defects of the Chinese Arbitration Law due to its lack of rich legislative experience and the conservative attitude toward arbitration. However, the Judicial Interpretation by the Supreme Court of China in 1995 makes a progress in Chinese Arbitration Law by strengthening the support to arbitration, but not playing the interventionist role of it.     

论法律监督与控、辩、审的关系

The purpose to set up public prosecution power is to restrict the investigation and judicial power. Public prosecution power is an organic combination of prosecution and trial supervision. The procurator’s supervision in the court does not infringe on the defendants’ procedural right. The procuratorial organ’s supervision on the matters of the court at the same level is only a power to start the correction procedure, however, the substantive power to make the final decision of whether to admit the mistake and how to make remedies belongs to the court. Therefore, the public prosecution’s status is much higher than that of the defense and the interferences with independent judicial power of courts by legal supervision do not exist in China. Gao Jingfeng is a senior procurator of the Supreme Procuratorate of China, National Research Specialist in procuratorial theory. His over ten major works include The Report on Judicial Reform—the procuratorate and courts in China, Chinese Procuratorial Practice, Outline of Chinese procuratorial system, Research on Office Crimes. His over thirty academic articles were released by the journals, such as Jurists, Legal Procedure and Judicial Systems, Procuratorial Daily, People’s Procuratorial, Legal Daily.     

日本涉外民商事管辖权制度初探

日本法院分为四级简易法院、地方法院、高等法院和最高法院。《日本民事诉讼法》中的许多规则用于确定国际管辖权问题都不是很恰当,判例在国际民商事管辖权领域里起着相当重要的作用。最高法院在1981年10月16日做出的判决是关于日本法院国际管辖权的指导性判决,它确立了国际民商事管辖权的一般标准,即“正义和合理”标准。管辖权的排除主要表现在以下方面法院选择协议、仲裁协议以及主权和外交豁免。在实践中,下级法院创设了有关国际管辖权的一项规则,即“特殊情势主义”。对于外国的未决诉讼、不方便法院原则、择地行诉和禁诉命令制度,日本的立法或实践以及学者的观点富有特色。     

我国“或裁或审”条款的反思与突破——兼评《仲裁法司法解释》第7条

由于没有明确的立法规定,“或裁或审”条款的性质与类型在认定上十分模糊,因此各级人民法院经常在该问题上产生混乱。例如,“或裁或审”条款与“一裁终局”条款相混淆,多份协议与单一协议中的“或裁或审”条款相模糊,以及对《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》(以下简称《仲裁法司法解释》)第7条的理解不一致等。虽然最高人民法院发布的司法解释或指导性案例能为各级人民法院在“或裁或审”条款的性质与类型的定性中提供指引,但并不能从根本上解决《仲裁法司法解释》第7条中对于仲裁协议无效的规定。纵观各国对于既约定仲裁又约定诉讼的条款的态度,我国对于仲裁无效的判定过于严厉,这与我国正在推进建立亚太国际仲裁中心的政策考量不入。只有对法律制度的突破与变更才能在实质上修正立法的滞后性。先管辖先受理原则的借鉴,不仅可以为维护当事人意思自治提供出路,而且可以为我国鼓励与支持仲裁的发展消弭弊端。     

论法院对国际商事仲裁裁决的程序审查

程序审查是法院对国际商事仲裁裁决进行司法审查的重要内容。但长期以来,在法院对国际商事仲裁裁决进行程序审查的范围和认定程序违法的标准问题上,一直没有统一的认识。并非所有的违反程序规则的行为都可作为认定程序违法并进而撤销仲裁裁决的理由,只有那些违反程序规则的行为严重到违反了正当程序原则时,才可认定仲裁程序违法,并进而考虑是否撤销仲裁裁决。这样才符合法律建立对国际商事仲裁裁决进行司法审查的原旨和目的。     

论我国经济贸易仲裁机构制度的改革与完善

在国际商事仲裁立法理论与实践上,仲裁机构不仅包括常设仲裁机构,而且也包括临时仲裁机构。我国现行仲裁法并未就临时仲裁作出规定,这是我国在立法制度上的缺憾。认为,随着经济全球化和国际服务贸易的发展,为了在对等原则上通过仲裁方式解决国际经济贸易合同争议,我国仲裁法应当承认临时仲裁在我国仲裁制度中的法律地位。     

Challenging arbitral awards: A comparative study of Chinese law, british law and UNCITRAL model law

Support and supervision of a court ensure the integrity of the arbitral process and protect the public interest. However, to prevent the confidence of the arbitral system from being damaged, the judicial control should not be too strict. The support and supervision of a court can be seen in many aspects, among which is to challenge an award. Under the Chinese arbitration law, an award made by a foreign arbitration agency is regarded as a foreign award, challenge of which involves resisting recognition and enforcement in accordance with the relevant provisions of the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republic of China or on the principle of reciprocity. Accordingly, an award made by a Chinese arbitration agency is regarded as a domestic award, challenge of which includes setting aside and resisting enforcement. As to the grounds and procedures for challenging a domestic award, including foreign-related awards and non-foreign-related awards, some Chinese provisions are either obscure or contradictory. There may be room for the Chinese system to be modernized. The Model Law and the English Arbitration Act of 1996 may be used for its reference.     

论国际商事仲裁裁决撤销程序的双重制约

国际商事仲裁裁决的撤销程序 ,是各国目前普遍采用的司法监督手段。针对国际商事仲裁界关于该制度的存废探讨 ,笔者在肯定了撤销程序的存在具有合理性的基础上 ,明确指出我们应当关注其双重制约因素 ,在不破坏仲裁解决纠纷的前提下 ,实行必要的司法监督。     

略论中国区际商事仲裁中心的构建

香港、澳门回归后,在一国两制的政治体制下,建立了独立的司法体系。台湾目前虽未统一,但多年来已经事实上形成了自成一体的法律体系。而各法域现有的仲裁机构的运作方式及理念存在一定的差距,不一定为其它法域的当事人所接受。然而,司法独立决定了在可以预见的未来不可能建立起有效的区际司法中心,应建立具有民间性质的仲裁机制-区际商事仲裁中心。     

论国际商会国际仲裁院裁决的国籍

尽管国际商会国际仲裁院设在法国巴黎,但是由该院管理的适用该院仲裁规则做出的裁决,并不当然具有法国的国籍,因为确定国际商事仲裁裁决的国籍主要标准是仲裁地点。根据ICC仲裁规则,仲裁地点可以由当事人约定,也可以由仲裁院决定,而无论是当事人约定还是仲裁院决定的仲裁地点,可以在法国,也可以是法国以外的国家和地区。因此,ICC仲裁院的仲裁庭适用该院仲裁规则做出的ICC裁决的国籍,取决于特定仲裁案件所涉及的法律意义上的仲裁地点所在国,而不是仲裁机构所在的国家。     

浅析我国仲裁司法监督的范围

目前,我国对内外仲裁的司法监督实行＂双轨制＂,其涉外仲裁裁决仅涉及审查和监督程序运作,国内仲裁裁决则涉及实体和程序两方面的审查。针对仲裁监督的范围,学界在＂程序监督论＂和＂全面监督论＂的问题上一直存有分歧。本文对比分析了这两大观点,并借鉴了英美法系和大陆法系国家的立法规定,提出了完善我国仲裁司法监督范围的几点建议。     

The Uncertainties in the Rule in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Re Hasting</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">Bass</Emphasis>

Writing extra-judicially, Sir Robert Walker once commented that ‘the decision in Re Hastings-Bass must be seen in its judicial context. It cannot be regarded as giving a “carte blanche” excuse to every body of trustees who have made a mistake. The law on the issue now stands in a state of some uncertainty’ (Walker, The limits of the principle in Re Hastings-Bass, P.C.B 226, 2002). There is no doubt in the minds of most commentators and, indeed those persons seeking to invoke the rule in Re Hastings-Bass on behalf of their clients, that much clarification is needed as to the proper scope of the rule. Recent judicial trends suggest that, not only is the rule in Hastings-Bass being applied at such an unprecedented rate with very little scrutiny from a court beyond that of the High Court, it is also showing signs of plaguing the wider fiduciary community. As the opportunity for the Court of Appeal, and indeed the Supreme Court, to exercise some judicial scrutiny of the rule may not be that far away, this article highlights some of the present uncertainties with the rule in Re Hastings-Bass.     

商事仲裁制度的完善与和谐社会的构建

作为多元化争议解决方式之一的商事仲裁之所以能够在和谐社会的构建中发挥重要作用的原因在于其独特优势的发挥.商事仲裁能够在多大程度上服务于和谐社会的构建则取决于商事仲裁的适用范围.商事仲裁司法监督的宽严对商事仲裁的适用以及优势的发挥具有重要影响.因而我国应完善商事仲裁制度,发挥商事仲裁优势、扩大商事仲裁的适用范围、放宽商事仲裁司的司法监督,从而使商事仲裁在和谐社会的构建中发挥更大的作用.     

Rhetoric,Harm, and the Personification of Progress in Mill's On Liberty

Abstract. On Liberty was written to influence the future of democratic government. To that end Mill employed rhetoric, particularly through the use of personifications, to persuade the mid‐nineteenth century British electorate to embrace the cause of civil liberty. His more subtle argumentation was directed to the intelligentsia (both his contemporaries and subsequent generations). Mill's harm principle, perhaps the most influential idea in On Liberty, undergoes a significant qualification in the scope of its application in the last chapter because of the dual argumentative strategy. This has been overlooked by Mill's American interpreters who use the harm principle to justify the judicial activism of the American Supreme Court. Further, the judicial restraint of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions can be reaffirmed through a scrutiny of Mill's rhetorical agenda.