國際商務仲裁之仲裁容許性問題:兼論統一規則建構

Abstract

爭議具備仲裁容許性與否是開啟仲裁程序首要面臨問題之一，同時也是撤銷、不予承認及執行仲裁判斷之法定事由。鑑於目前各國間對仲裁容許性判斷欠缺一致性標準，紐約公約與國際商事仲裁示範法亦無明確指引，是本文欲嘗試釐清真正影響仲裁容許性判斷之因素，並探討建構統一規則的可能性，降低商務仲裁中因仲裁容許性問題致生之法律風險。 仲裁作為今日重要訴訟外紛爭解決機制，各國立場已趨開放。然而，爭議涉及公權力行使、公共利益、強制性規範、弱勢保護、第三人權利義務、公開要求者，能否交付仲裁，在不同地區仍引發不同程度的不安與批評；另一方面，對仲裁容許性的限制，也對當事人程序選擇權形成干預，且與紐約公約、國際商事仲裁示範法所確立支持仲裁政策相背離，顯現特定爭議應肯認或否定其仲裁容許性之兩難。 關於仲裁容許性討論，傳統上多自實體法觀點切入，如證券法、公司法、競爭法、專利法等爭議之仲裁容許性。經由歸納、檢驗不同法領域中經常作為爭執仲裁容許性問題之事由，本文認為，仲裁容許性問題根源，與仲裁程序本身侷限密切相關，即仲裁以私法自治、契約自由、隱密性、一審一級、衡平仲裁、商業考量等為基礎原則與制度特色，卻難以回應特定爭議之需求，進而產生仲裁容許性爭議，故應可由此重新思考仲裁容許性問題本質。 關於建構仲裁容許性判斷統一規則，曾於聯合國國際貿易委員會決議中被提出，近年亦有學者呼籲。為兼顧支持仲裁政策，本文嘗試藉由上述引發仲裁容許性問題根源，提出禁止仲裁清單與判斷標準，以及認定爭議不可仲裁之法定事由，作為統一規範建構模式；此外，本文認為，仲裁容許性除了「爭議能否交付仲裁」，亦有「容許程度」之差別，即當事人享有之私法自治形成空間。因此，仲裁程序修正方面，可思考應適時引入訴訟程序公開性、第三人程序參與的制度，回應特定爭議審理需求，亦減少該特定爭議全面禁止仲裁之負面影響。 最後，本文認為，唯有釐清仲裁容許性界限、適當的建構仲裁容許性判斷統一規則或修正現有仲裁程序，長遠而言，更有助於支持仲裁政策發展。

This thesis addresses the issues of arbitrability. Arbitrability is not only a condition of the validity of arbitration agreements, but also constitutes the grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement, or setting aside the arbitral awards under the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Considering there is no consensus among countries on determining the question of arbitrability so far, neither the New York Convention nor the Model Law providing guidance, the purpose of this thesis is to find some possible approaches, to decrease the legal uncertainties and risks arising out of arbitrability. In international trade and commerce, arbitration has nowadays become increasingly popular and widely accepted as a means of resolving disputes. Most countries have liberalized their attitude to arbitration. However, disputes involved exercise of government authority, public interests, mandatory rules, weak parties, or the third party, still be concerned or criticized as arbitrable in some region; on the other hand, limitations to arbitrability might derogate the principle of party autonomy, and conflicts to the trend of pro-arbitration policy which the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law have recognized, that again appears the dilemma of whether some certain disputes should be arbitrable. Traditionally, most discussion regarding to arbitrability divided into such substantive issues as securities, corporate, antitrust, patent disputes. By observing and analyzing those grounds usually taken as challenging the arbitrability, this thesis argues that, the nature of arbitrablility issues are in connection with the limitations of the arbitration procedure itself, that is, party autonomy, confidence, final and binding, ex aequo et bono principle, business consideration, etc. In other words, these principle and characteristics make arbitration unsuccessful to respond to the specific needs of some disputes, and triggering the controversies of arbitrability. The thoughts of constructing uniform rules for arbitrability has once been mentioned in the United Nations International Trade Commission resolution, and recently be called by some scholars as well. To give consideration to both pro-arbitration policy and concerns above, this thesis attempts to propose a list of non-arbitrable disputes, and the grounds for non-arbitrability. In addition, the thesis argues that the arbitrability issues are not only about whether the dispute is arbitrable, but also how flexible the arbitration procedure can be. Thus, the thesis suggests to introduce some public hearing, third-party participation procedures in arbitration, to solve the problems, and at the same time decrease the negative impact of limiting arbitration. The author suggests, making it clear of where is the line between arbitrable and non-arbitrable disputes, and constructing some uniform rules and amending arbitration procedures if need be, will benefit the development of arbitration in the long run.