论违背“一裁终局”原则的仲裁裁决之撤销

On the Revocation of Arbitral Award Violating the Principle of One-Trial Finality

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1 ;毛杰

摘要:

一裁终局是仲裁的核心机制,当在后仲裁裁决立足的事实全部或部分与在先仲裁裁决立足的事实相同时,就可能涉嫌违背一裁终局原则,从而面临撤销或不予执行的司法审查。考察此类司法撤销的实践,不同法院通常援引程序违反、仲裁机构无权仲裁以及违反社会公共利益等作为撤裁的依据。针对相同的裁决现象援引不同的撤裁依据,既表明司法审查实践的冲突,又揭示了这些撤裁依据彼此之间存在一定程度的重叠。在现行撤裁依据中新设"违背法定可仲裁性"的类型,是在保守与改革之间的改良方案,它既可以利用其内涵的包容度有效应对违背一裁终局的仲裁裁决,又可以明晰现行撤裁依据之间的意义边界,还可以避免对现行撤裁依据的设置框架造成过度冲击,体现了收放之间的中道衡平。这一推陈出新之举提升了现行撤裁依据体系的柔韧度,能更好满足仲裁实践中不当仲裁裁决救济之需求。

出版日期:

2020-12-15

学科:

诉讼法学

提交日期

2021-01-14

引用参考

张春良;毛杰. 论违背“一裁终局”原则的仲裁裁决之撤销[J]. 西南政法大学学报,2020(06):60-72.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论违背“一裁终局”原则的仲裁裁决之撤销
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 张春良;毛杰
  • dc.contributor.author
  • ZHANG Chun-Liang;MAO Jie;Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.publisher
  • 西南政法大学学报
  • dc.publisher
  • Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2020
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 06
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.22;No.132
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 60-72
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2020-12-15
  • dc.subject
  • 仲裁裁决;一裁终局;可仲裁性;裁决撤销
  • dc.subject
  • arbitral award;one-trial finality;arbitrability;revocation of arbitral award
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 一裁终局是仲裁的核心机制,当在后仲裁裁决立足的事实全部或部分与在先仲裁裁决立足的事实相同时,就可能涉嫌违背一裁终局原则,从而面临撤销或不予执行的司法审查。考察此类司法撤销的实践,不同法院通常援引程序违反、仲裁机构无权仲裁以及违反社会公共利益等作为撤裁的依据。针对相同的裁决现象援引不同的撤裁依据,既表明司法审查实践的冲突,又揭示了这些撤裁依据彼此之间存在一定程度的重叠。在现行撤裁依据中新设"违背法定可仲裁性"的类型,是在保守与改革之间的改良方案,它既可以利用其内涵的包容度有效应对违背一裁终局的仲裁裁决,又可以明晰现行撤裁依据之间的意义边界,还可以避免对现行撤裁依据的设置框架造成过度冲击,体现了收放之间的中道衡平。这一推陈出新之举提升了现行撤裁依据体系的柔韧度,能更好满足仲裁实践中不当仲裁裁决救济之需求。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • One-trial finality of arbitral award is a basic principle for arbitration. If an arbitral award is made on the same or partly same facts which have been decided by other arbitral awards,it will be reviewed by courts because of the possibility of violating the principle of one-trial finality. Different legal bases,such as the due process,arbitrability and public order,are relied on by different courts to revoke these facts-overlapping arbitration awards,which demonstrates the judicial review conflicts among these courts and unclear limits among these legal bases. The solution between conservative and revolution ways is to put the principle of arbitrability into the legal bases for judicial review,which could deal with the arbitral ward violating the principle of one-trial finality,differentiate related legal bases and not to sharply change legal rules. The suggested solution enhances the flexibility and openness of current legal rules,by which they will be more adaptable to defeat illegal arbitral wards.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 201919XTY004;2019CYS19163;20192019XZXS-097
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2019年度国家社科基金西部项目“我国运动项目协会内部治理研究”(19XTY004);2019年度重庆市研究生科研创新项目“我国涉外侵权法律适用司法实证研究”(CYS19163);西南政法大学2019年度学生科研创新项目“涉外侵权法律适用司法实证研究”(2019XZXS-097)
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 50-1024/C
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1008-4355
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 0.460
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.7
回到顶部