仲裁程序與訴訟程序都是裁判者透過當事人的攻擊與防禦方法來發現真實以制作裁判，可是這兩種程序在性質上還是有許多不同的地方，除了仲裁程序得由當事人自主決定外，在仲裁程序中不得有「缺角程序」；而訴訟程序則承認有受命法官的「缺角程序」，在訴訟的評議中不允許有「缺角的合議庭」，而仲裁的評議則有「缺角仲裁庭」的特別制度。 「缺角仲裁庭」的出現由來已久，其合法性受到爭議。這項問題的處理不能以訴訟程序的觀點去解答，仲裁法有自己一套處理方法。本文在提出其問題之所在外，也一併介紹外國的立法例供參考。

Nowadays arbitration has become the prevalent means of alternative dispute settlement. However, arbitration was not popular in Taiwan as the caseload remains insignificant. Although a Commercial Arbitration Ordinance was in effect since 1961, it was considered poorly drafted and attracted much criticism. In 1998 a new Arbitration Act was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) as well as other advanced foreign legislation,with anticipation that arbitration in Taiwan could be encouraged. Despite some significant improvements were made, the provisions concerning action of setting aside against arbitral awards remains substantially untouched, providing some eleven grounds under which an award could be challenged in court. It is well accepted that usually an award with serious procedural defects could be subject to setting aside. If the parties were allowed to challenge an award on substantive grounds,the fundamental principle of arbitral award being final and binding upon the parties would be undermined. The new act does not follow very well the approach adopted by the Model Law in this regard. Another more serious flaw under the new act is that it failed to point a proper court to hear the action of setting aside. Most foreign legislations designate the action to a specified national court, with a limited access of appeal against setting aside decisions to prevent the losing party from using setting aside procedure to delay the enforcement of the award. Under the new act, however, common procedure is to be followed with full access of appeal, rendering setting aside another series of legal battle after the arbitration proceedings. For the losing party it would be an excuse to resist the enforcement of an award. The failures to comply with the standard grounds of setting aside and to restrain appeal access constitute the major defects of the new act. If no further amendment on these two issues is to be carried out, one cannot be too pessimistic about the future of arbitration in Taiwan.

就美國仲裁法制而言，除該國已於一九七○年簽署加入紐約公約外，美國國會於一九二五年制定通過聯邦仲裁法（Federal Arbitration Act, FAA），而在州法階層，美國多數州亦分別有各該州之仲裁立法，而各該州之仲裁法，則多係以一九五五年「統一（模範）仲裁法」（Uniform Arbitration Act, UAA）為藍本。 惟因FAA制定至今已超過四分之三個世紀，UAA頒布至今亦已將近半世紀，此間，仲裁實務已有相當程度之質變與量變，為因應所需，「修訂統一仲裁法」（Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, RUAA）於焉誕生。 緣以RUAA可謂融合現行仲裁實定法與判例法之精神於一身，足堪代表美國仲裁法制現狀，因生本文研究之動機。本文第二部分首先簡介RUAA之沿革，第三部分說明RUAA主要之修訂目的，第四部分淺析RUAA修訂過程面臨之難題，第五部分闡釋RUAA之新定規範，第六部分析述RUAA之修訂規範，第七部分乃以RUAA為借，省思我國現行仲裁法內容，並以之代本文之結論，最後附錄RUAA原文與相對應之中文翻譯以供參照。

證券交易之主要原則，在於發行市場之真實性與流通交易市場之公平公正性。近年來，工商業多元化與科技之高度發展，伴隨金融與貨幣價值，致使資本市場蓬勃，證券市場之機制亦日漸正常化。正因如此，資本市場之特徵，在於資本證券化與證券大眾化，雖然機構投資人在台灣地區並不普遍，但投資有價證券已成普遍之事實，其爭議在所難免，當爭議產生之際，以訴訟平息固屬一途，惟專業法庭之欠缺與訴訟曠日費時之考量，亦為值得商榷之處。茲因仲裁制度（不論是ADHOC或INSTITUTE ARBITRATION）已受重視並接受。且證券交易法第一百六十六條至第一百七十條亦特別規範七證券仲裁。職是，確實值得研究。本文自證券仲裁與一般仲裁比較其異同之處，並就證券交易法之若干立法 爭議，詳加探討，包含證券仲裁程序抗辯、請求權基礎、主任仲裁人之選定、人頭戶融資融券之問題、違約交割、內線交易、操縱行為（炒作行為）等項；且就美國法制與日本法制之比較，作為法學研究方法。此外，亦舉若干常見之證券仲裁實際案例，在confidentiality之原則下，敘明證券仲裁之機制、原理與處理爭議之準據，俾供各界先界斟酌與指正。

本文基於我國憲法及兩岸人民關係條例，以「超法域」觀念，探討兩岸經貿活動中，以調解、訴訟或仲裁解決其爭議，何者較為妥適。並於結論中建議兩岸仲裁機構合作設立「兩岸常設仲裁法庭」，並試參考UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules草擬「兩岸常設仲裁法庭仲裁規程」。