论先予仲裁裁决的司法审查

Judicial review on arbitral awards made before the dispute

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

张春良

归属院系：

国际法学院

作者：

张春良 ;旷菊

摘要：

先予仲裁裁决以创新之名,行违背正当程序之实,不仅异化了仲裁功能,而且减损了仲裁公信力。最高人民法院专此颁布司法解释,以《仲裁法》第2条和《民事诉讼法》第237条第2款第3项为由,分别在执行程序的立案和审查两阶段,对先予仲裁裁决予以区分并阻却。在执行立案阶段以《仲裁法》第2条为据,引入不予受理或驳回申请的裁定,有在法定清单外拓展司法审查依据之嫌,偏离立法从严控制司法审查仲裁的初心。保守但更合理的对策是,将《民事诉讼法》第237条第2款第2项中的"仲裁机构无权仲裁"依据予以独立化设置,不仅可以合理涵摄先予仲裁裁决,而且还可以在可接受的限度内发挥兜底条款的功能。如此可提高司法审查依据的设置梯度,既可阻却先予仲裁裁决等乱象,又可维持现行法定审查依据的封闭性及立足其上的支持仲裁的理念。仲裁唯有守正创新,才能行稳致远,不断提升仲裁公信力。

语种：

中文

出版日期：

2019-12-15

学科：

诉讼法学

收录：

中国科技核心期刊

提交日期：

2020-01-18

引用参考：

张春良;旷菊. 论先予仲裁裁决的司法审查[J]. 中国海商法研究,2019(04):75-85.

  • dc.title
  • 论先予仲裁裁决的司法审查
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 张春良;旷菊
  • dc.contributor.author
  • ZHANG Chun-liang;KUANG Ju;International Law School, Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学国际法学院
  • dc.publisher
  • 中国海商法研究
  • dc.publisher
  • Chinese Journal of Maritime Law
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2019
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 04
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.30;No.63
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 75-85
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2019-12-15
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 先予仲裁;仲裁裁决;司法审查;无权仲裁;仲裁公信力
  • dc.subject
  • arbitration made before the dispute;arbitral awards;judicial review;arbitrating without legal base;public credibility of arbitration
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 先予仲裁裁决以创新之名,行违背正当程序之实,不仅异化了仲裁功能,而且减损了仲裁公信力。最高人民法院专此颁布司法解释,以《仲裁法》第2条和《民事诉讼法》第237条第2款第3项为由,分别在执行程序的立案和审查两阶段,对先予仲裁裁决予以区分并阻却。在执行立案阶段以《仲裁法》第2条为据,引入不予受理或驳回申请的裁定,有在法定清单外拓展司法审查依据之嫌,偏离立法从严控制司法审查仲裁的初心。保守但更合理的对策是,将《民事诉讼法》第237条第2款第2项中的"仲裁机构无权仲裁"依据予以独立化设置,不仅可以合理涵摄先予仲裁裁决,而且还可以在可接受的限度内发挥兜底条款的功能。如此可提高司法审查依据的设置梯度,既可阻却先予仲裁裁决等乱象,又可维持现行法定审查依据的封闭性及立足其上的支持仲裁的理念。仲裁唯有守正创新,才能行稳致远,不断提升仲裁公信力。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In the name of innovation,the arbitral award made before the dispute violates the principle of due process,which not only alienates the arbitration function,but also detracts from the credibility of the arbitration. The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China promulgated judicial interpretations for this purpose,based on Article 2 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 237,paragraph 2,item 3 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China,respectively,it tried to distinguish and block the said arbitral awards at the two stages of the filing and review of the enforcement procedures. In the initiation of enforcement procedure,based on Article 2 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China,the ruling to reject the application for enforcement of arbitral award is suspected of expanding the judicial review outside the statutory bases list,and deviates from the legislation intent to strictly control the judicial review of arbitration. A conservative but more reasonable way is to make the basis of the"arbitral institution without power arbitration"as provided in Article 2 of Article 237 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China independent,which can not only deny the arbitral awards made before dispute,but also function as a residual clause within the legal intent. This can improve the judicial bases to review arbitral awards,make the bases list exhaustive,and benefit arbitration. Only through innovating by abiding by law,can arbitration be stable and far-reaching,and continuously establish the public credibility.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 201818BTY069
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2018年度国家社科项目“冬奥会赛事争议仲裁研究”(18BTY069)
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 21-1584/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 2096-028X
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 0.939
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.1;D925.7
回到顶部