涉经济制裁仲裁裁决承认与执行研究

A Research on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Involving Economic Sanction

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

国际法学院

作者:

邓君鉴

摘要:

经济制裁作为一国实现外交战略目的的法律工具,通常以金融制裁、贸易限制与旅行限制等多种形式综合实施。此种经济制裁将直接影响国际商事交易的进行,并传导式地对国际通行的解纷解决制度国际商事仲裁产生影响,特别是涉及国家政治与外交因素的经济制裁的外国裁决在承认与执行过程中极易面临各种拒绝承认与执行的具体条件的阻碍。本文旨在聚焦《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(以下简称《纽约公约》)中的承认和执行条件,在该公约框架下考察涉经济制裁仲裁裁决跨国司法审查实践,通过对相关国家司法审查立场中的共性与个性的差异成因进行分析,进而提出我国仲裁司法审查在面临承认与执行涉经济制裁外国仲裁裁决的司法建议,以期助力我国反制裁法律体系的实施,最终更好维护我国主权、安全和发展利益。本文通过对既往涉经济制裁仲裁裁决承认与执行的国别实践进行梳理与分析,主要探讨相关国家司法审查实践对经济制裁的适用态度,并结合我国一贯支持仲裁事业发展与善意履行国际条约的司法立场,对我国未来面对该类裁决承认与执行时的司法立场提出类型化建议。总体而言,文章共分为六个部分:第一部分对涉经济制裁仲裁裁决的承认与执行进行基本界定。本部分主要阐述了涉经济制裁仲裁裁决的基础概念,提出涉经济制裁仲裁裁决司法审查的国际依据;明确在《纽约公约》框架下经济制裁适用于承认与执行外国仲裁裁决司法审查的具体路径。第二部分探讨经济制裁在仲裁协议司法审查中的适用。经济制裁作为一种强制性的公法规范,其适用能否直接构成仲裁协议无效的理由,或者能否影响仲裁协议的实施,这是司法审查涉制裁仲裁协议面临并需要作出回答的问题。各国司法审查实践存在差异,大致有两种实践:欧洲部分国家以经济制裁的适用否认仲裁协议的效力;俄罗斯排除涉外国制裁而无法实施的仲裁协议的效力,并为此建立国内专属管辖。第三部分研究经济制裁在仲裁程序司法审查中的适用。从仲裁裁决得以形成的程序视角观察,一方面经济制裁可能使得受制裁当事人未能聘请律师,当事人与证人因制裁未能参与仲裁程序,以及仲裁员因制裁产生中立性偏见,从而挑战正当程序中平等陈述的问题;另一方面受制裁事项是否构成仲裁员的回避事由与仲裁员披露义务,成为司法审查时当事人能否以仲裁庭组庭瑕疵抗辩仲裁裁决承认与执行的关键。第四部分梳理经济制裁在可仲裁性审查中的适用。目前大多数国家的司法实践都支持了涉经济制裁争议具有可仲裁性的观点,但仍有部分国家采取了涉经济制裁争议不具有可仲裁性、仅能由法院管辖的强硬态度。随着外国仲裁裁决司法审查实践的发展,本部分也关注并分析了部分文献所提指出的涉经济制裁的属人的不可仲裁实践。第五部分分析经济制裁在公共政策审查中的适用。由于经济制裁通常涉及一国国家政治外交与安全因素,加之公共政策本身的宽泛性,各国对经济制裁与公共政策的关系呈现差异较大的立场。第六部分转化涉制裁仲裁裁决承认与执行的域外经验,对我国承认和执行《纽约公约》框架下涉制裁仲裁裁决的司法审查提出完善建议。具体来说,在涉经济制裁仲裁裁决的承认与执行的司法审查中,我国法院应严格适用仲裁协议无效路径、审慎适用程序事项、排除适用可仲裁性方式、类型化适用公共政策例外。

语种:

中文

学科:

国际法学

提交日期

2024-06-16

引用参考

邓君鉴. 涉经济制裁仲裁裁决承认与执行研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2024.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 涉经济制裁仲裁裁决承认与执行研究
  • dc.title
  • A Research on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Involving Economic Sanction
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20210301090988
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 邓君鉴
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2024
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 国际私法
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 张春良
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 经济制裁,承认与执行,仲裁裁决,《纽约公约》
  • dc.subject
  • Economic sanctions; Arbitral award; New York Convention; Recognition and enforcement
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 经济制裁作为一国实现外交战略目的的法律工具,通常以金融制裁、贸易限制与旅行限制等多种形式综合实施。此种经济制裁将直接影响国际商事交易的进行,并传导式地对国际通行的解纷解决制度国际商事仲裁产生影响,特别是涉及国家政治与外交因素的经济制裁的外国裁决在承认与执行过程中极易面临各种拒绝承认与执行的具体条件的阻碍。本文旨在聚焦《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(以下简称《纽约公约》)中的承认和执行条件,在该公约框架下考察涉经济制裁仲裁裁决跨国司法审查实践,通过对相关国家司法审查立场中的共性与个性的差异成因进行分析,进而提出我国仲裁司法审查在面临承认与执行涉经济制裁外国仲裁裁决的司法建议,以期助力我国反制裁法律体系的实施,最终更好维护我国主权、安全和发展利益。本文通过对既往涉经济制裁仲裁裁决承认与执行的国别实践进行梳理与分析,主要探讨相关国家司法审查实践对经济制裁的适用态度,并结合我国一贯支持仲裁事业发展与善意履行国际条约的司法立场,对我国未来面对该类裁决承认与执行时的司法立场提出类型化建议。总体而言,文章共分为六个部分:第一部分对涉经济制裁仲裁裁决的承认与执行进行基本界定。本部分主要阐述了涉经济制裁仲裁裁决的基础概念,提出涉经济制裁仲裁裁决司法审查的国际依据;明确在《纽约公约》框架下经济制裁适用于承认与执行外国仲裁裁决司法审查的具体路径。第二部分探讨经济制裁在仲裁协议司法审查中的适用。经济制裁作为一种强制性的公法规范,其适用能否直接构成仲裁协议无效的理由,或者能否影响仲裁协议的实施,这是司法审查涉制裁仲裁协议面临并需要作出回答的问题。各国司法审查实践存在差异,大致有两种实践:欧洲部分国家以经济制裁的适用否认仲裁协议的效力;俄罗斯排除涉外国制裁而无法实施的仲裁协议的效力,并为此建立国内专属管辖。第三部分研究经济制裁在仲裁程序司法审查中的适用。从仲裁裁决得以形成的程序视角观察,一方面经济制裁可能使得受制裁当事人未能聘请律师,当事人与证人因制裁未能参与仲裁程序,以及仲裁员因制裁产生中立性偏见,从而挑战正当程序中平等陈述的问题;另一方面受制裁事项是否构成仲裁员的回避事由与仲裁员披露义务,成为司法审查时当事人能否以仲裁庭组庭瑕疵抗辩仲裁裁决承认与执行的关键。第四部分梳理经济制裁在可仲裁性审查中的适用。目前大多数国家的司法实践都支持了涉经济制裁争议具有可仲裁性的观点,但仍有部分国家采取了涉经济制裁争议不具有可仲裁性、仅能由法院管辖的强硬态度。随着外国仲裁裁决司法审查实践的发展,本部分也关注并分析了部分文献所提指出的涉经济制裁的属人的不可仲裁实践。第五部分分析经济制裁在公共政策审查中的适用。由于经济制裁通常涉及一国国家政治外交与安全因素,加之公共政策本身的宽泛性,各国对经济制裁与公共政策的关系呈现差异较大的立场。第六部分转化涉制裁仲裁裁决承认与执行的域外经验,对我国承认和执行《纽约公约》框架下涉制裁仲裁裁决的司法审查提出完善建议。具体来说,在涉经济制裁仲裁裁决的承认与执行的司法审查中,我国法院应严格适用仲裁协议无效路径、审慎适用程序事项、排除适用可仲裁性方式、类型化适用公共政策例外。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Unilateral economic sanctions, as a means of achieving a country's foreign policy objectives, commonly manifest as trade and financial restrictive measures. These restrictive elements not only directly impact commercial interactions but are increasingly visible in their influence on international commercial arbitration. Especially when foreign arbitration awards involving economic sanctions, intertwined with national political and diplomatic factors, are vulnerable to being blocked due to specific conditions for refusal of recognition and enforcement during the recognition and enforcement process. The aim of this paper is to delve into the recognition and enforcement conditions outlined in the New York Convention. It examines the current practice of transnational judicial review of arbitration awards related to economic sanctions within the framework of the Convention. Furthermore, it analyzes the reasons for similarities and differences in the judicial review positions adopted by relevant countries. Based on this analysis, it suggests improvements to the judicial review of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards related to economic sanctions in China. This is done with the intention of supporting the implementation of the country's anti-sanctions legal system and ultimately safeguarding China's sovereignty, security, and development interests.By meticulously combing and analyzing the practices of countries in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards involving economic sanctions, this article primarily examines the judicial review positions adopted by relevant countries towards the application of such sanctions. Furthermore, it offers a typology of suggestions for China's future judicial stance in dealing with the recognition and enforcement of such awards, taking into account the country's unwavering support for the advancement of arbitration and its commitment to fulfilling international treaties in good faith. Broadly speaking, the article is structured into six sections:The initial section establishes a fundamental understanding of the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards pertaining to economic sanctions. This segment details the core concept of arbitration awards linked to economic sanctions, presents the international framework for judicial review of such awards, and outlines the specific approach for incorporating economic sanctions into the judicial review of foreign arbitral awards within the context of the New York Convention.The second part delves into the application of economic sanctions in the judicial review of arbitration agreements. As a mandatory norm of public law, the question arises whether the application of economic sanctions can serve as a direct basis for invalidating an arbitration agreement, or whether it can hinder the enforcement of such an agreement. Judicial review of arbitration agreements involving sanctions faces this challenge and needs to provide answers. Practices vary among countries, with two primary approaches emerging: certain European countries invalidate arbitration agreements when economic sanctions are applied, while Russia excludes the validity of arbitration agreements that cannot be enforced due to foreign sanctions, establishing exclusive domestic jurisdiction in such cases.The third part focuses on the application of economic sanctions in the judicial review of arbitral proceedings. From a procedural perspective, the formation of arbitral awards is scrutinized. On one hand, economic sanctions may pose a challenge to the due process principle of equal presentation rights, by preventing sanctioned parties from retaining counsel, preventing parties and witnesses from participating in the arbitration process, and potentially introducing bias in the arbitrator's neutrality. On the other hand, the question arises whether the sanctioned matter constitutes a basis for disqualifying an arbitrator or triggers the arbitrator's duty of disclosure during judicial review. Additionally, whether the sanctioned matter forms the basis for an arbitrator's recusal and the fulfillment of their disclosure obligations becomes pivotal in determining whether parties can rely on defects in the composition of the arbitral tribunal as a defense against the recognition and enforcement of the award.The fourth part explores the application of economic sanctions in arbitrability review. Currently, judicial practices in most countries uphold the view that disputes involving economic sanctions are arbitrable. However, some countries maintain a strict stance, asserting that disputes involving economic sanctions are non-arbitrable and can only be adjudicated by courts. With the evolution of judicial review practices regarding foreign arbitral awards, this Part also considers and analyzes the arbitrability ratione personae pertaining to economic sanctions, as highlighted in certain literature.The fifth part examines the application of economic sanctions in public policy review. Given that economic sanctions often involve a country's national political diplomacy and security considerations, coupled with the broad scope of public policy, the relationship between economic sanctions and public policy exhibits diverse positions among nations.The sixth part examines the extraterritorial experience in the recognition and enforcement of sanctions-related arbitral awards and proposes suggestions for enhancing the judicial review of the recognition and enforcement of such awards within the framework of the New York Convention in China. Specifically, when conducting judicial review for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards involving economic sanctions, Chinese courts should strictly adhere to the invalidation of the arbitration agreement, exercise caution in applying procedural matters, exclude the application of the arbitrability approach, and adopt a categorical approach in applying the public policy exception.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2024-06-16
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2024-06-01
回到顶部