- 本會書刊
- 仲裁季刊
第 111 期目錄
-
仲裁實務
-
仲裁機構引進「仲裁院」作為「機構治理」的要素:獨立、公正與專業的表徵(羅昌發)
「仲裁院」在我國仲裁體制下,為尚屬陌生的概念。本文首先釐清「仲裁院」的精神,及其在仲裁機構運作上扮演的重要角色;並從機構治理的角度探討其功能與效益,認為藉由「仲裁院」的設置,及賦予其管理或監督仲裁事件之職責,有助於達成仲裁獨立性、公平性與專業性的目標。本文認為,如欲達成此等目標,於制度設計上須遵守「仲裁業務經營及一般行政」與「仲裁事件程序及監督」分離之原則;確保「仲裁院」成員具有高度專業聲望並嚴守利益迴避;且將「仲裁院」的設立與權限,明定於仲裁機構的仲裁規則中。本文並認為,成立「仲裁院」不僅符合機構治理原則,且對仲裁機構而言,有顯而易見的附帶效益。仲裁機構在決定是否採行「仲裁院」機制時,可將此納為整體考量。
-
仲裁機構仲裁判斷書核閲程序比較(李復甸)
-
Scrutiny of the Award – Is It Really Helpful?(Stephan Wilske and Mathilde Raynal)
The scrutiny process of arbitral awards has been highly discussed for years, due to the divergent views on the subject in the arbitral practice. Nonetheless, arbitral institutions have not shied away from this process. Quite to the contrary, this process has been, and remains, used by arbitral institutions. All the more so, the scrutiny process is becoming more and more established, as a rise in its codification and implementation has been seen in arbitral institutions’ rules. Whether its benefits truly outweigh its disadvantages remains nevertheless questioned. It is undeniable that the scrutiny process of arbitral awards offers greater certainty by promoting an award’s legal effectiveness and enforceability. This is essentially why such a process exists (putting aside the reputational aspect for arbitral institutions that comes by ensuring high enforceability rates of awards rendered under their aegis). However, from a practical angle, this review process is not without potential repercussions on the award itself. Arbitral institutions must hence remain careful as to not get carried away and refrain from an overambitious application of this process. In other words, arbitral institutions should not see this process as a way to point out every aspect of an award that they may not (fully) agree with. This would lead to a counterproductive application of the scrutiny process. Rather, arbitral institutions should stick to a tempered approach and see this process as a way to assist arbitrators in the redaction of their award. In the end, this scrutiny process should still be considered a very helpful tool for arbitrators in order to maximize their award’s enforceability.
-
仲裁判斷書的核閱—有助益嗎?(陳世杰 譯)
仲裁判斷書之核閱在概念上與實務操作上多年來備受關注,各家意見亦多有分歧。即便如此,仲裁機構依然堅定不移地繼續採用該程序。更有甚者,隨著機構規則逐步明文採納仲裁判斷書之核閱制度,其更普遍成為仲裁程序的重要一環。然核閱制度是否利大於弊,容有不少質疑。但不可否認的是核閱制度能促進仲裁判斷的法律效力及執行力,進而增加仲裁程序的確定。此正為此制度的核心所在(尚且不論核閱制度可提高仲裁機構的聲譽)。另一方面,從實務角度來看,這並不代表核閱機制對於仲裁判斷百利而無一害。仲裁機構仍須保持審慎態度,避免在核閱過程中逾越了分際。換言之,仲裁機構於核閱仲裁判斷書時,不應將核閱程序當作找出判斷書中所有其不同意之處的機會,這會適得其反。仲裁機構應採用較溫和的作法,以核閱程序協助仲裁人撰寫判斷,並最終提高仲裁判斷的執行力。
-
主要國際仲裁機構設立案件內控專責組織之比較分析(陳世杰 俞鴻玲)
-
仲裁機構與仲裁人的互動案例研究-以仲裁人迴避與解任為中心(羅傑 邱貝語)
隨著國際仲裁案件的數量增長,機構仲裁扮演仲裁程序監督者的角色日漸重要。此亦對仲裁機構仲裁庭間的分工與互動產生影響,其中尤其以仲裁機構對仲裁庭組成,仲裁人迴避聲請、解任或更替的決定兩者最為重要。本文主要針對後者加以探討。
本文首先由法律經濟分析與歷史演進的角度,說明仲裁制度的運作基礎,以及仲裁機構出現對仲裁制度的影響,以及仲裁機構維護仲裁制度正當性之功能。其次,本文透過倫敦國際仲裁院(The London Court of International Arbitration, LCIA)針對仲裁人迴避聲請、解任的規則及案例研析,然後以一LCIA的實際案例,說明在案件中LCIA的仲裁院如何處理仲裁人迴避聲請中,可能面臨的棘手問題,又如何拿捏與仲裁人互動的界線與分寸。
-