电子商务仲裁法律问题研究

电子商务的迅速发展使仲裁解决其纠纷成为必要,但和一般的民商事仲裁相比,电子商务仲裁有许多法律问题需要解决。本文即对电子商务仲裁所面临的若干法律问题,诸如电子仲裁协议的法律效力、电子商务证据效力、电子商务仲裁适用的法律等进行了深入的研究。     

仲裁员与仲裁当事人法律关系模型的困境及其解决

英国法传统上将仲裁员与仲裁当事人之间的法律关系视为合同关系。根据《德国仲裁法》,仲裁员合同是通过仲裁当事人与仲裁员之间的要约与承诺形成的。在排除公权力干预的前提下,对争议进行公正、有效的仲裁,也包括确保仲裁员的独立性和公正性不受仲裁员与双方仲裁当事人法律关系影响,是仲裁员、指定仲裁员的仲裁当事人以及对方当事人的共同利益诉求。仲裁员追求的经济利益,超出对方仲裁当事人所预期承担的部分的利益诉求,即便存在仲裁员与指定仲裁员的仲裁当事人之间的合意,也应当服从于对争议进行公正、有效仲裁的诉求。仅从合同法出发解释仲裁员与仲裁当事人法律关系将无法满足仲裁员和双方仲裁当事人在仲裁方面共同的关于仲裁公正、有效地进行以及取得恰当的经济利益的利益诉求。仲裁员与仲裁当事人之间的法律关系是一个复合的法律关系,包含了以提供仲裁服务为标的的合同法律关系和以作出仲裁裁决为标的的身份法律关系,前者的依据是以仲裁员为一方,以双方当事人为另一方的双方当事人合意,后者的依据是法律的相关规定。     

建立国际投资仲裁的上诉机制问题析评

近年来,国际投资仲裁案件迅猛增加,不仅使东道国主权面临挑战,也引起出现有投资条约的诸多设计缺陷所导致的仲裁合法性危机。改造投资仲裁机制已经不再仅仅停留在学术争鸣阶段而是迅速发展到具体的条约改革实践阶段。其中,建立仲裁的上诉机制就是这种改革实践的一种具体表现。建立仲裁的上诉机制是对传统投资仲裁体制的重大变革,尚存在许多理论争议和政治及法律障碍,但由于这种改革已经进入实践阶段并由美国积极倡导,势必对国际投资争端解决的未来发展趋势产生重要影响。     

国际投资仲裁中的社会利益保护

传统国际投资仲裁无论在程序安排还是价值取向上都倾向于偏袒外国私人投资者的经济利益,而对于东道国社会利益的保护则是缺乏的。由于东道国在推动经济与社会发展的同时,不仅仅考虑的是经济利益,也需要考虑某些社会利益或者社会价值的需求,因此在国际投资争端仲裁中,应当重视保护东道国的社会利益。在晚近的投资仲裁程序与实践中,保护东道国的社会公共利益的趋势在不断增强。     

美国阶梯式纠纷解决条款执行力问题研究

如何选择一种更快捷、更有效以及更便宜的方式来解决合同纠纷,是国际商事社会如今所面临的挑战。这并不是说要摒弃传统的诉讼和仲裁等争议解决机制,而是指需要用其他替代手段来补充这些机制。本文将以美国为例,对ADR方式作为仲裁或诉讼前置程序的阶梯式纠纷解决条款进行研究,以期提供给当事方最好的争议解决机制来满足维持其彼此间良好关系的特殊需要。     

论我国劳动争议处理体制的完善

“一调一裁两审”是我国现行的劳动争议处理体制。随着经济体制改革的深入,特别是企业劳动制度改革的深入,在司法实践中,诸如:解决劳动争议的周期长、成本高,劳动争议委员会法律地位不明确,仲裁机构本身具有局限性,弱化了仲裁高效率的职能,损害了劳动仲裁的权威性,仲裁与审判之间缺乏协调等问题越显突出。实行“或裁或审,裁审分轨”“两裁终决”,完善“三方机制”,通过制定法律法规,建立劳动法院,实行“两审终审”制等措施建立并完善现行劳动争议处理体制,使之促进市场经济健康稳定发展,也与国际劳动争议体制相接轨。     

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.     

论国际仲裁在WTO争端解决机制中的嬗变

国际仲裁是解决国际争端的重要法律方法之一,传统上具有当事方自治、一裁终局等特点。目前的WTO争端解决机制是一套综合了各种外交及法律争端解决手段、独具特色的新型国际争端解决机制。随着社会的发展,国际仲裁在WTO争端解决机制中具有了一些新形式,也发生了一些新变化,值得进一步辨析和考察。     

浅析国际投资多边立法的不足及其影响

由于资本输入国和资本输出国之间的矛盾，国际投资的多边立法一直进展缓慢。全球性多边投资实体法规则的缺失和有效的投资争议解决机制的缺乏，不利于造就一个稳定的、可预见的国际投资环境。未来的投资法体系的完善，很大程度上取决于国际社会能否尽快找到一个合适的多边投资立法场所，能否确立一套适当平衡南北利益的多边实体法投资规则和有效的投资争议解决机制。多边投资立法的加强，不仅是弥补现有国际投资立法不足的重要手段，也是全球经济一体化和国际投资自由化的必然要求。     

论国际投资仲裁中的公共利益保护

国际投资争端往往涉及重大的公共利益,国际投资仲裁度制度的合理设置有助于维持正常的国际经济交往秩序、保障公共利益。但在仲裁实践中,由于国际投资仲裁存在着强调私有财产权的倾向、仲裁程序欠缺透明度、投资者享有争端解决选择权等制度性缺陷,制约着国际投资仲裁对公共利益重要价值追求的实现。应通过缩小仲裁庭的管辖权,规范其审慎解释权,平衡仲裁秘密性与透明性的关系,借鉴"法庭之友"制度建立第三方参与制度,设立国际投资仲裁上诉机制等不同具体制度的改革完善,限制国际投资仲裁庭的自由裁量权,确保国际投资仲裁中的公共利益得以有效维护。     

A review of the legislative reform of customary arbitration in Ghana

Due to the phenomenon of legal pluralism that colonial rule left in its wake, customary arbitration is still a method of dispute resolution in Ghana despite the formal judicial system. But until 2010, customary arbitration practice was regulated only by case law. To put it on a firmer legal foundation and streamline its practice and procedures, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 codified customary arbitration as an ADR method. In this article, we examine the legislative reform of customary arbitration in Ghana and assess the extent to which the ADR Act has improved it.     

The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World Investment Organisation?

With growth in foreign investment and in the number of companies investing in foreign countries, the application of general principles of public international law has not been deemed adequate to regulate foreign investment and there is, as yet, no comprehensive international treaty on the regulation of foreign investment. Consequently, states have resorted to bilateral investment treaties (BITs), regional trade and international investment agreements (IIAs) and free trade agreements to supplement and complement the regime of protection for foreign investors. In the absence of an international investment court, states hosting foreign investment or investor states have opted for investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS). This mechanism has brought about its own challenges to the international law of foreign investment due to inconsistency in the application and interpretation of the key principles of international investment law by such arbitration tribunals, and further, there is no appellate mechanism to bring about some cohesion and consistency in jurisprudence. Therefore, there are various proposals mooted by scholars to address these challenges and they range from tweaks to BITs and IIAs, the creation of an appellate mechanism and the negotiation of a multilateral treaty to proposals for reform of ISDS only. After assessing the merits and demerits of such proposals, this study goes further, arguing for the creation of a World Investment Organisation with a standing mechanism for settlement of investment disputes in order to ensure legal certainty, predictability and the promotion of the flow of foreign investment in a sustainable and responsible manner.

     

论对发展中国家参与投资条约仲裁的援助

近年来,发展中国家签署的双边投资条约在为其营造稳定、透明投资环境的同时,为投资者利用条约仲裁条款挑战东道国政府提供了创新性的争议解决模式。很多发展中国家缺乏参与投资条约仲裁的经验,并且没有能力支付雇用外部律师的昂贵费用,投资条约仲裁的合法性受到威胁。投资条约仲裁法律援助中心的建立,可以为发展中国家获取法律权威资料和法律专门人才提供便利,以使其能有效地应对投资条约争议的申请。     

以国际商事法庭为核心的我国“一站式”国际商事纠纷解决机制建设

我国提出建立诉讼、调解、仲裁有效衔接的多元化"一站式"国际商事纠纷解决机制。国际商事法庭作为该机制的核心不仅要扩张其管辖,还需要对调解和仲裁提供司法支持和监督,并深化国际商事专家委员会的职能。国际商事纠纷解决机制需要配套程序法的国际化,为此要引入国际化的商事调解,完善国际商事仲裁法律制度,民事诉讼法也要有所突破和创新,并在多双边层面推动国际商事调解协议和判决的跨境执行。     

Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law

The article outlines a simple thesis: that international investmentarbitration – pursuant to regional and bilateral investmenttreaties – offers the clearest example of global administrativelaw, strictly construed, yet to have emerged. We present thisthesis by explicating four key features of investment treaties:they permit investor claims against the state without exhaustinglocal remedies; they allow claims for damages; they allow investorsto directly seek enforcement of awards before domestic courts;and they facilitate forum-shopping. Our argument is that, owingto this unique conjunction of features, the regulatory conductof states is, to an unusual extent, subject to control throughcompulsory international adjudication. Having highlighted thesefeatures, we then claim that investment arbitration is bestanalogized to domestic administrative law rather than to internationalcommercial arbitration, especially since investment arbitrationengages disputes arising from the exercise of public authorityby the state as opposed to private acts of the state. Further,we claim that the linkages between investment arbitration anddomestic legal systems are more direct and more closely integratedthan other forms of international adjudication in the publicsphere. For these reasons, we argue that the emerging regimeof investment arbitration is to be understood as constitutingan important and powerful manifestation of global administrativelaw.     

Parallel Proceedings in Investor‐State Treaty Arbitration: Responses for Treaty‐Drafters,Arbitrators and Parties

Parallel investment treaty arbitrations present a demonstrated risk of inconsistent awards. This article examines several ameliorative responses to parallel investment treaty proceedings, executable by treaty‐drafters, arbitrators and parties themselves. The unique jurisdiction mechanics and applicable law in investment treaty disputes frames the responses available. Despite the unique context within which parallel investment arbitrations occur, the challenges they pose to party interests, to principles including legal fairness and to the effective pursuit of dispute resolution closely resemble those posed by parallel proceedings in other domestic and international legal fora.     

上海自由贸易试验区对我国涉外经济法制转型的影响

上海自贸区正式获准成立,这是中国法治转型中的重大创新。上海自贸区内通过临时性的授权调整,逐步推进行政审批体制改革,实行准入前国民待遇和"负面清单"管理模式,以此推进政府职能转变;在投资领域努力扩大服务业的投资开放、促进外商投资准入制的转轨、构筑对外投资服务促进法律体系;在贸易领域积极推动贸易结构的转型升级、提升国际航运服务能级;在金融领域应加快金融制度创新,增强金融服务能力,实现"在岸金融"与"离岸金融"的互动;并在争议解决机制构建方面也进行了卓有成效的探索。     

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.     

论WTO框架下ADR争端解决机制的完善

ADR是诉讼和仲裁的辅助手段,它对一些不易及时解决以致不能达成共识的争议能迅捷经济地加以解决,这也是社会进步和法制健全的表现。随着经济社会的快速发展,民商事争议呈复杂多样化发展,诉讼不应是解决争议的唯一渠道,而应是实现公正审理的最终途径。ADR争端解决机制给我们的启示良多,特别是在我国不断建立健全市场经济体系的条件下,要求我们构建涵盖多种选择的争端解决方式,从而有利于解决经济社会纷繁复杂的民商事争议。     

论国际投资仲裁中贿赂行为的证明标准

对于贿赂行为的证明标准,国际投资仲裁庭的倾向是从回避到明确借鉴传统商事仲裁中的＂更高证明标准＂。然而,国际投资仲裁与国际商事仲裁存在较大的区别。支持国际商事仲裁庭采用＂更高证明标准＂的传统理由及潜在动机在国际投资仲裁中并不存在。因此,在国际投资仲裁中采用＂更高证明标准＂的法律依据不足。建议中国在BIT中将贿赂作为不可仲裁的投资争端事项之一加以规定,或者明确规定应采纳的证明标准。如中国作为被申请方参加国际投资仲裁程序,应该主动与仲裁庭讨论关于贿赂的证明标准问题,以争取有利条件。