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。     

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.     

中国职务发明纠纷多元解决机制探究

中国职务发明数量的增长以及职务发明纠纷的增加引起了各界的广泛关注,如何构建有效的纠纷解决机制成为了一个十分重要的议题.通过分析以德国和法国为代表的大陆法系国家以及以美国和英国为代表的英美法系国家的相关纠纷解决机制,并将其与中国当前实践进行比较,(本文认为)有效的纠纷解决机制应致力于两方面努力.一方面,在设有知识产权法院的城市设立解决职务发明纠纷的专门委员会来专门处理职务发明纠纷.另一方面,在实体和程序上协同调解、仲裁及诉讼程序,从而使这些机制能够共同实现职务发明纠纷的有效解决.在参照《专利法》第四次修改内容和《专利纠纷行政调解指南》的基础上,将中国实践中的各种职务发明纠纷解决机制相协调,这有利于激励科技创新,平衡雇主与雇员的利益,进而有助于将中国建设成为创新型国家.     

合并仲裁法律制度探究--兼论中国合并仲裁制度之构建

在当代国际商事仲裁实践中,对多方当事人争议采取何种适当的仲裁程序加以解决是困扰商事仲裁的一大难题.围绕多方当事人争议的解决问题,在各国仲裁立法与实践中主要存在着两种不同的理论与实践,即否定合并仲裁的实践与肯定合并仲裁的做法.客观地讲,这两种不同的态度利弊并存,各有所长,但相对而言,合并仲裁的优势大于其缺陷.由于合并仲裁有其存在的制度价值、理论基础及可行性,因此中国仲裁立法应当适时引入合并仲裁制度.     

我国特色的劳动争议仲裁终局化之理念和制度架构——《劳动争议调解仲裁法》第47条释正

《劳动争议调解仲裁法》第47条规定了一种有条件、有限制的终局裁决制度,它不仅引起了必要的条文上的规范分析,也带来了学术上的仲裁终局化畅想.从第47条出发来认识我国劳动争议仲裁的终局化,要认识该条文在实施中的制度性和技术性问题,要兼顾劳动仲裁制度的一般法理,更要把握住我国劳动争议仲裁终局化中给予劳动者倾斜性保护以及提升劳动争议解决效率的务实理念.在学理上,强拉硬拽的或裁或审、一裁终局观念只会弱化仲裁的作用,不符合我们强调调解、仲裁的国情.继续强调第47条背后仲裁和审判的平衡观念,有利于明晰独具我国特色的劳动争议仲裁终局化之理念和制度架构.     

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.     

论国际商事仲裁中的可仲裁事项

结合一些主要国家有关国际商事仲裁立法与实践,论述国际商事中的可仲裁事项的确定标准及其应当适用的法律,在此基础上阐述我国现行有关可仲裁事项的立法与实践。作者认为,国际仲裁协议项下的某一特定争议能否通过仲裁方式解决,归根结底取决于相关国家,特别是对特定案件事实管辖的法院所在国对仲裁所实施的公共政策和法律。     

论WTO争端解决的合理执行期仲裁——兼论中美知识产权案的执行对策

2009年1月12日和3月20日,WTO的DSB先后通过裁定中国有关立法或行政措施违反WTO有关协定的争端解决报告。根据WTO规则,我国应立即执行有关裁定。如立即执行不可能,则可要求一个合理执行期。如与有关争端方商定合理执行期未成,则根据DSU有关规定采用仲裁裁决该合理执行期。在概述WTO仲裁程序的基础上,着重讨论仲裁合理执行期的实践及其存在问题,从而提出我国应对合理执行期的若干建议。     

INCORPORATION OF UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL

Globalization has enabled China to rationalize and institutionalize its economic and political system. China has been quite successful in accommodating globalization in its legal reform. As China becomes one of the important trade players in the international market, the commercial disputes between Chinese companies and foreign trade-partners to be resolved through the arbitration are arising substantially. To an extent, China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) has sped up its legal reform in the past decades. However, there are some deficiencies with respect to the mechanism and legislation of China’s arbitration law that arguably is not responsive to the norms of the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL) Model Law (1985) and its Amendment (2006). This paper provides an overview of arbitration in China from the legislative and practical perspectives, covering the arbitration’s evolution history and problems before and after 1994. The paper focuses on some important issues in China’s Arbitration Law (“CAL”), evaluating its legislative defects which are inconsistent with the Model Law and its Amendment, clarifying how the Model Law was incorporated into China’s CAL. Some legislative amendments are recommended for CAL’s modernization and its practices, to align it with international arbitration norms in the future.     

Using Shields as Weapons: Third-Party Funding Assisting China-Related Arbitration under Belt and Road Investment

In the summer of 2017, Hong Kong became the first jurisdiction in China to codify formal financing arbitration and to make it clear that third-party funders with no legitimate interest in the disputes could be allowed to inject capital to support funded parties in arbitration cases. With the latest Code of Practice coming into effect in the spring 2019, Hong Kong is ready to guide the funders in detail on delivering investments into the arbitral procedures in the harbor seat. By examining these legislative processes in Hong Kong, it can be proved that financing arbitration will enable enterprises to dispose of their disputes with easier access to justice, promote the quality and efficiency of dispute resolution, and improve the welfare of society as a whole. Therefore, it is justifiable to adopt third-party funding in China-related arbitration to promote the Chinese mainland’s arbitration practices and support the international proceedings involving Chinese parties, particularly the international ones arising from investments related to the Belt and Road Initiative.     

当事人共任仲裁员不能之救济实践及完善

当事人共任的仲裁员包括独任、首席和仲裁公断人三种类型。由于仲裁当事人处境变迁、仲裁协议约定不明、仲裁员名册硬性限制,以及当事人意思自治的异化,都可能导致共任仲裁员不能的难题。中国仲裁立法、各仲裁机构仲裁规则在救济当事人共任仲裁员不能时均采机构负责人直接指定的方式,但此种方式容易导致权力寻租等连锁问题。为最大化当事人在共任仲裁员问题上的合意,应当重构中国仲裁实践的救济方案,以"穷尽一切共任合意之救济手段"为规则,抵消机构指定这一体现"相对意思自治"精神的方法之消极效应,通过相对意思自治的再次相对化,在共任仲裁员问题上寻找自治与外力、公平与效率之间的最优解。     

关于美国证券仲裁发展的几个重要判例之评析

美国证券仲裁发展伴随着一系列针对对事前约定仲裁证券争议的协议的法律效力的司法判例。最初的判例否定了事前约定仲裁有关证券法的争议的协议的法律效力。随后,判例的思想被延伸至有关证券交易法的争议。随着美国证券市场的发展,一系列案例最终确定了事前约定仲裁证券争议的协议的法律效力。     

瑕疵仲裁协议效力的认定

瑕疵仲裁协议是当事人在争议发生之前或争议发生之后订立的仲裁意思表示明确、真实但内容存在些许缺陷的书面文件。一个仲裁协议是否瑕疵仲裁协议,取决于判定仲裁协议效力的法律。我国的仲裁立法对仲裁协议的有效要件规定的过于严苛,使许多当事人仲裁意思表示真实的仲裁协议被认定为瑕疵仲裁协议导致仲裁协议无效,当事人丧失了仲裁救济途径。我国的仲裁法亟待完善,亟待与国际社会接轨。我国应当以1985年联合国国际贸易法委员会《国际商事仲裁示范法》为蓝本制定我国的仲裁法律,使我国的仲裁法与各国法律保持一致,我国现在是贸易大国、海运大国,我国应该成为国际贸易争议仲裁中心和国际海事案件仲裁中心,这样才能与我国的贸易大国、海运大国地位相匹配。     

从宁波工艺品公司案看我国法院对涉外仲裁协议的监督

国家法院对仲裁协议实施监督的核心问题,就是仲裁协议的效力和仲裁庭管辖权的认定：在仲裁程序开始之前,法院就应当根据另一方当事人的请求,令当事人将协议项下的事项提交仲裁解决,除非法院认定仲裁协议无效、失效,或者不能履行;在仲裁程序开始之后,法院仍然有权根据一方当事人的请求对仲裁协议有效性和仲裁庭的管辖权问题进行审理,法院的此项权力来源于法院地国的国内法;在仲裁程序结束之后,当事人还可以裁决所依据的仲裁协议无效为由,申请法院撤销此根据无效仲裁协议作出的裁决,或者拒绝承认与执行此裁决。但如果当事人在仲裁程序中放弃了对仲裁协议有效性或者仲裁庭的管辖权提出异议的权利,则当事人在裁决作出就不能再以仲裁协议无效或者仲裁庭对仲裁协议项下的争议没有管辖权为由,请求法院撤销或者拒绝执行此仲裁裁决。     

浅析《鹿特丹规则》中的仲裁问题

2008年12月11日,历时数年的《联合国全程或部分海上国际货物运输合同公约》（又称《鹿特丹规则》）尘埃落定。其兼顾先进性与实用性的制度设计,旨在统一现行国际货物运输法律体系,重新调整《海牙-维斯比规则》所确立的船货双方利益分配法律制度,顺应了国际贸易和航运实践发展的新趋势。第15章＂仲裁＂的规定,以平衡国际运输关系各方的仲裁选择权与世界各国的司法管辖权为立法精神,起到衔接现有国际仲裁公约和便利航运贸易纠纷解决的积极作用,将有力推动国际商事海事仲裁制度的发展。中国应充分借鉴吸收新公约的优秀制度,立足于完善《仲裁法》和《海商法》中的仲裁规定,不断在立法和司法上健全仲裁法律体系。     

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。     

合同债权与仲裁条款转让的再审视——基于实体法、程序法和冲突法的视角

合同转让时,尤其是合同权利转让时仲裁条款是否随之转让的问题,是近年来国际商事仲裁领域的一个重要话题。目前,国内理论界的主流观点以及司法实践支持仲裁条款自动转让。但仲裁条款自动转让的理论依据并不充分,也未解决所有问题,而且对于仲裁条款转让的论证仅仅限于国内法上的视角,并未考虑国际合同转让中仲裁条款的效力和相关的法律冲突与法律适用等问题。本文旨在从实体法、程序法和冲突法的多维角度,进一步探讨合同仲裁条款转让的理论和实践问题,并对当前国内外的立法与实践进行评判,以期进一步完善我国国内的法制和实践。     

海南自由贸易港临时仲裁制度的建设研究

海南自贸港的仲裁机制应置于国际竞争中去考量。在海南自贸港中构建临时仲裁制度符合市场经济发展的规律和该制度自身发展的规律。尽管目前临时仲裁制度已在自贸区内有限开放,但临时仲裁制度在海南自贸港落地的障碍主要来自于我国仲裁机构的定位不合理,“三特定”的界限模糊,临时仲裁裁决的执行和认可缺乏规制,现有临时仲裁规则普适性的缺失。我国香港地区的临时仲裁的发展数据表明,成熟和强大的法律体系、临时仲裁的高度保密性、仲裁机构的有限介入和当事人的意思自治是该项制度迅速发展的重要原因,值得参考。海南自贸港在立法路径上可根据《立法法》对《仲裁法》第16条和第18条作出变通处理或者根据《立法法》对临时仲裁制度作出系统性的规定,并报全国人大常委会批准,应重新认识仲裁机构的促进性和服务性并高度尊重当事人的意思自治,还原临时仲裁的本质属性。     

从旭普林公司案看我国法院对国际商事仲裁的监督

运用国际商事仲裁的一般理论和国际商事仲裁立法与实践,结合我国法院就国际商会国际仲裁院仲裁庭根据该院仲裁规则就德国旭普林公司案在我国上海作出的仲裁裁决所实施的司法监督,探讨了国际商事仲裁裁决与涉外裁决、外国裁决和《纽约公约》项下的非本国裁决之间的联系与区别。由此认为本案项下的裁决,既不是我国裁决,也不是外国裁决,而是《纽约公约》项下的非内(本)国裁决。     

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.