請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9271完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 羅昌發 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wei-Jen Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳緯人 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T20:15:25Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2009-07-15 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T20:15:25Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2009-07-15 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2009-07-13 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文專書
Leo Rosenberg著(2002)，莊敬華譯，「證明責任論」，中國法制出版社。 王澤鑑(2000)，「民法總則」，三民書局。 吳光明(1999)，「商事爭議之仲裁」，五南圖書出版公司。 李復甸(1996)，「國際商務仲裁準據法之研究」，載於：「國際私法論文集」。 杜新麗編(2005)，「國際民事訴訟和商事仲裁」，中國政法大學出版社。 林俊益(2001)，「仲裁法之實用權益」，頁168-169，永然文化，初版。 邱聯恭(2003)，「口述民事訴訟法講義(三)」。 姜世明(2004)，「新民事訴訟法論」，修訂2版。 張錦源(2001)，「國際貿易法」，三民書局，第5版。 陳煥文(1994)，「國際仲裁法專論」，五南圖書出版公司。 楊崇森等著(1999)，「仲裁法新論」，中華民國仲裁協會。 趙秀文編(2005)，「國際商事仲裁案例評析」，中國法制出版社。 劉敏編(2002)，「現代仲裁制度」，中國人民公安大學出版社，第1版。 駱永家(1972)，「民事舉證責任論」，台灣商務印書館。 韓波(2005)，「民事證據開示制度研究」，中國人民大學出版社。 中文期刊文獻 Kevin M Clermont & Emily Sherwin著(2002)，黃國昌譯，「證明度」—比較法下之觀點，法學論叢第188期。 沈冠伶(2000)，論民事訴訟程序中當事人之不知陳述，政大法學評論第63期，收錄於：氏，「民事證據法與武器平等原則」，元照，2007年。 沈冠伶(2000)，論新民事訴訟法中法官之闡明義務與當事人之事案解明義務，萬國法律雜誌第111期，收錄於：氏，「舉證責任與真實義務」，元照，2007年。 沈冠伶(2005)，摸索證明與事證蒐集開示之協力，月旦法學雜誌第125期，收錄於：氏，「民事證據法與武器平等原則」，元照，2007年。 沈冠伶(2009)，證明妨礙法理在醫療民事責任之適用，台大法學論叢第38卷第1期。 事證開示制度(discovery)與發現真實—民訴法研究會第五十次研討紀錄(1994)，法學叢刊第155期。 林俊益(2005)，法院對仲裁之協助與監督:仲裁法實施後之現況分析，仲裁季刊第75期。 邱聯恭(2000)，仲裁契約之妨訴抗辯效力—評最高法院八十一年度第三次民事庭會議決議，載於：氏，「程序選擇權論」。 邱聯恭(2000)，程序選擇權之法理，載於：氏，「程序選擇權論」。 姜世明(2001)，證明妨礙之研究，—民事訴訟法第二百八十二條之依之發展評估，萬國法律雜誌第115期。 姜世明(2004)，過失證明妨礙，法學講座第26期。 姜世明(2006)，訴訟上非負舉證責任一造當事人之事案解明義務，收錄於：氏，「舉證責任與真實義務」，新學林。 姜世明(2006)，對於所謂「應負舉證責任一造當事人有證明妨礙」見解之質疑—評台灣台北地方法院九十年度訴字第一八一八號民事判決，月旦法學雜誌第138期。 姜世明(2006)，論民事訴訟中之摸索證明，收錄於：氏，「舉證責任與真實義務」，新學林。 姜世明(2008)，證明度之研究，收錄於：氏，「舉證責任與證明度」，新學林。 徐盛國(1999)，仲裁之性質與理論基礎，仲裁季刊第55期。 張曼隆(2004)，談去內國化理論和仲裁程序適用法的關係，仲裁季刊第71期。 許士宦(2001)，證明妨礙，月旦法學雜誌第76期，收錄於：氏，「證據蒐集與紛爭解決」，學林，2005年。 許士宦(2002)，當事人違反文書提出命令之制裁，月旦法學雜誌第86期。 許士宦(2003)，文書之開示與秘匿，台大法學論叢第23卷第4期，收錄於：氏，「證據蒐集與紛爭解決」，學林，2005年。 許士宦(2005)，不負舉證責任當事人之事案解明義務，收錄於：氏，「證據蒐集與紛爭解決」，學林。 許兆慶(2002)，美國二○○○年修訂統一仲裁法簡析(上)，仲裁季刊第65期。 陳煥文(1998)，論英國1996年新仲裁法，商務仲裁第49期。 陳煥文(1999)，論新仲裁法中仲裁程序準據法之適用順序，全國律師雜誌。 陳煥文、梁堯清(2002)，撤銷仲裁判斷理論之研究(上)，仲裁季刊第66期。 陳詩經(2006)，仲裁程序中關於調查證據之進行及相關法律問題之探討，仲裁季刊第77期。 黃國昌(2003)，比較民事訴訟法下的當事人圖像—由審理基本原則、證據收集權及證明度切入，政大法學評論第76期。 黃國昌(2004)，事證開示義務與舉證責任(上)—由台北地方法院八九年度簡上字第八一五號判決出發，台灣本土法學雜誌第61期。 黃國昌(2004)，證明妨礙，月旦法學教室第25期。 黃國昌(2005)，階段的舉證責任論—統合實體法政策下之裁判規範與訴訟法觀點下之行為規範，東海大學法學研究第22期。 楊淑文(2004)，從特定類型之實務見解觀察舉證責任分配之判斷標準，台灣本土法學雜誌第60期。 駱永家(2001)，證明妨礙，月旦法學雜誌第69期。 藍瀛芳(2000)，仲裁文書送達程序的準用民事訴訟法問題，仲裁季刊第59期。 藍瀛芳(2006)，仲裁之開始，仲裁季刊第78期。 中文碩博士論文 王昌鑫(2003)，「我國與PRC仲裁法關於國際商事仲裁法律適用問題之研究」，東海大學法律研究所碩士學位論文。 朱家惠(2007)，「從紐約公約之發展與實踐論外國仲裁判斷之承認與執行」，東吳大學法律學系碩士專班論文。 呂綺珍(2005)，「論民事證據法上之事實認定與證明責任」，國立台灣大學法律學研究所論文。 陳在方(2005)，「世界貿易組之爭端解決機制下舉證責任之研究」，國立台灣大學法律學研究所論文。 陳希佳(1998)，「現代仲裁人之比較研究—以機構仲裁為中心」，國立台灣大學法律學研究所論文。 潘天慶(2006)，民事訴訟法上證明妨礙之研究，東吳大學法律學研究所論文。 中文其他資料 中華民國民事訴訟法。 中華民國仲裁協會仲裁規則( http://www.arbitration.org.tw/content/a10_4.htm#1)。 中華民國仲裁法。 法務部(1999)，仲裁法修正條文對照表，仲裁法規彙編。 英文專書 Allen, Ronald R., Jr (1994), Overview: the Common Law Systems, in EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS (Peter V. Eijsvoogel eds.). Allison, Richard C. & Howard M. Holtzmann (2000), The Tribunal’s Use of Eperts, in THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS RESOLUTION (David D. Caron & John R. Crook eds.). Arnott, James M. (2002), Presenting Evidence and Arguments in an International Arbitraiton, in THE ARBITRATION PROCESS (Dennis Campbell ed.). Böckstiegel, Karl-Heinz (2006), Presenting, taking and Evaluating Evidence in International Arbitration, in HANDBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION & ADR, (Thomas E. Carbonneau et al. eds.). BORN, GARY (1994), INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN THE UNITED STATES: COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS. BORN, GARY B. (2006), INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND FORUM SELECTION AGREEMENTS: DRAFTING AND ENFORCING, 2nd ed. BRIGGS, ADRIAN (2002), THE CONFLICT OF LAW. BROWER, CHARLES N. & JASON D. BRUESCHKE (1998), THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. BROWN, HENRY & ARTHUR MARRIOTT (2002), ADR PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE. CARON, DAVID D. ET AL. (2006), THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES: A COMMENTARY. Carter, James H. (2007), Selecting the Site for Arbitration, in PRACTITIONER’S HANDBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION (Rufus v. Rhoades et al. eds., 2nd ed.). COLLIER, J. G. (2001), CONFLICT OF LAWS. Curschmann, Jan (1994), Germany, in EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS (Peter V. Eijsvoogel eds.). DAMASKA, MIRJAN R. (1997), EVIDENCE LAW ADRIFT. DERAINS, YVES & ERIC A. SCHWARTZ (2005), A GUIDE TO THE ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION, 2nd ed. DICEY ET AL. (2006), THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 4th ed. Eijsvoogel, Peter V. (1994), General Synthesis Report, in EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS (Peter V. Eijsvoogel eds.). FIELD, RICHARD H. & HONORABLE BENJAMIN KAPLAN (1973), MATERIALS FOR A BASIC COURSE IN CIVIL PROCEDURE, 3rd ed. FIELD, RICHARD H. ET AL. (1997), MATERIALS FOR A BASIC COURSE IN CIVIL PROCEDURE, 7th ed. Fischer, Robert Donald & Roger S. Haydock (2002), Drafting an Enforceable Arbitraiton Agreement, in THE ARBITRATION PROCESS (Dennis Campbell ed.). FRIEDENTHAL, JACK H. ET AL. (2005), CIVIL PROCEDURE: CASES AND MATERIALS, 9th ed. FRIEDMAN, JOEL WM. ET AL. (2006), THE LAW OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: CASES AND MATERIALS, 2nd ed. GARNER, BRYAN A. & HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK (2004), BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 8th ed. GRAVES, MORRISSEY (2008), INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW AND ARBITRATION: PROBLEMS, CASES, AND COMMENTARY. Hascher, Dominique T. (1996), The law Governing Procedure: Express or Implied Choice by the Parties – CONTRACTUAL Pactice, in PLANNING EFFICIENT ARBITRATION PROCEDDINGS – THE LAW APPLICABLE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (Albert Jan van den Berg ed.). Hinchey, John W. & Elizabeth T. Bear (2002), Exchanges of Documents and Depositions in International Arbitration, in THE ARBITRATION PROCESS (Dennis Campbell ed.). HOF, JACOMIJN J. VAN (1991), COMMENTARY ON THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES: THE APPLICATION BY THE IRAN-U.S. CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. JENKINS, JANE & SIMON STEBBINGS (2006), INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATION LAW. KANTOR, MARK (2008), VALUATION FOR ARBITRATION: COMPENSATION STANDARDS, VALUATION METHODS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE. KAZAZI, MOJTABA (1996), BURDEN OF PROOF AND RELATED ISUES: A STUDY ON EVIDENCE BEFORE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS. KENDALL, JOHN (2001), EXPERT DETERMINATION. Lew, Julian D.M. & Laurence Shore (2006), Common law versus Civil law, in HANDBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION & ADR (Thomas E. Carbonneau et al. eds.). LEW, JULIAN D.M. (1978), APPLICABLE LAW IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION. LOOKOFSKY, JOSEPH & KETILBJØRN HERTZ (2004), TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION AND COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION. LORENZEN, ERNEST G. & STUMBERG, GEORGE W. (1951), CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS. LOWENFELD, ANDREAS F. (2006), International Litigation and Arbitration 410, 3rd ed. MAPP, WAYNE (1993), THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: THE FIRST TEN YEARS. Mehren, Robert B. von (1996), Burden of Proof in International Arbitration, in PLANNING EFFICIENT ARBITRATION PROCEDDINGS – THE LAW APPLICABLE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (Albert Jan van den Berg ed.). MISTELIS, LOUKAS A. & JULIAN D.M. LEW (EDS.) (2006)PERVASIVE PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. MOENS, GABRIËL & PETER GILLIES (2006), INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND BUSINESS: LAW, POLICY AND ETHICS, 2nd ed. MOSES, MARGARET L. (2008), THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION. NORTH, PETER & J.J. FAWCETT (2004), PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. PARK, WILLIAM W. (2006), ARBITRATION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES. PETROCHILOS, GEORGIOS (2004), PROCEDURAL LAW IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION . RAU, ALAN SCOTT ET AL. (2006), ARBITRATION. REDFERN, ALAN & MARTIN HUNTER ET AL. (2004), LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, 4th ed. REISMAN, W. MICHAEL ET AL. (1997), INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: CASES, MATERIALS AND NOTES ON THE RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSNIESS DISPUTES. RISKIN, LEONARD L. ET AL. (2005), DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND LAWYERS, 3rd ed. Ruhlmann, F. & Gutkes, O. (1994), France, in EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS (Peter V. Eijsvoogel eds.). Sajko, Krešimir (1989), The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 from the Yugoslav Point of View: Selected Issues, in Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (Petar Šarčević ed.). SANDIFER, D. (1975), EVIDENCE BEFORE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL, rev. ed. Selby, J (1992), Fact-Finding Before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: The View of the Trenches, in FACT-FINDING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS (R Lillich ed.). Smith, Steven L. (2007), Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, in PRACTITIONER’S HANDBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION (Rufus v. Rhoades et al. eds., 2nd ed.). Stewart, David P. (1994), National Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under Treaties and Conventions, in International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards “Judicialization” and Uniformity? (Richard B. Lillich & Charles N. Brower eds.). Tackaberry, John (2007), Practical Considerations for Conducting the Hearing, in PRACTITIONER’S HANDBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION (Rufus v. Rhoades et al. eds., 2nd ed.). Tao, Jingzhou (2007), Document Production in Chinese International Arbitration Proceedings, in International Arbitration 2006: Back to the Basics? (Albert Van den Berg ed.). TEPLY, LARRY L. ET AL. (2007), CIVIL PROCEDURE: CASES, TEXT, NOTES, AND PROBLEMS. TWEEDDALE, ANDREW & KEREN TWEEDDALE (2005), ARBITRATION OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES: INTERNATIONAL AND ENGLISH LAW AND PRACTICE. TWINING, WILLIAM (1990), RETHINKING EVIDENCE. WIGMORE, JOHN HENRY (1981), EVIDENCE § 2478, James H. Chadbourn rev. 英文期刊文獻 Bensaude, Denis (2005), S.A. Otor Participations v. S.A.R.L Carlyle (Luxembourg) Holding 1 : Interim Awards on Provisional Measures in International Arbitration, 22(4) J. INT’L ARB. 357. Benson, Robert E. (1996), The Power of Arbitration and Courts to Order Discovery in Arbitration—Part I, 25 Colo. Lawyer 55. Clermont, Kevin M & Emily Sherwin (2002), A Comparative View of Standard of Proof, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. Elsing, Siegfried H. & John M. Townsend (2002), Bridging the Common Law Civil Law Divide in Arbitration, 18(1) ARB. INT’L 1. Kötz, Hein (2003), Civil Justice Systems in Europe and United States, 13 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L 61. Langbein, John H. (1985), The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 823. Langbein, John H. (1987-1988), Trashing the German Advantage, 82 Nw. U. L. Rev. 763. Mann, Francis (1986), 2 ARB INT. 241. McAllister, Bruce A. & Amy Bloom (2003), Evidence in Arbitration, 34(1) J. Mar. L. & Com. 35. McCabe, M (1986), Arbitral Discovery and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Experience, 20 INT’L LAWYER. 499. Mehren, George M. von & Claudia T. Salomon (2003), Submitting Evidence in an International Arbitration: The Common Lawyer’s Guide, 20(3) J. INT’L ARB. 285. Park, William W. (1983), The Lex Loci Arbitri and International Commercial Arbitrtion, 32 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 21. Patocchi, Paolo Michele & Ian L. Meakin (1996), Procedure and the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration: The Interaction of Civil Law and Common Law Procedures, 7 INT'L BUS. L.J. 884. Pietrowski, Robert (2006), Evidence in International Arbitration, 22(3) ARB. INT’L. 373. Soffin, Rachel L. (2004-2005), Civil Procedure: Arbitration and Discovery 34 STETSON L. REV. 251. Straus, M. (1986), The practice of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in Receiving Evidence from Parties and from Expert, 3 J. INT’L ARB. 57. Wilske, Stephan & Christine Gack (2007), Expert Evidence in International Commercial Arbitraiton, 29 COMP. L. Y.B. INT’L BUS. 75. Wilske, Stephan (2008), The Global Competition for the ‘Best’ Place of Arbitration for International Arbitrations – A More or Less Biased Review of the Usual Suspects and Resent Newcomers, 1(1) Contemp. Asian Arb. J. 21. Yu, Hong-lin (2008), Choice of the Proper Law vs. Public Policy, 1(1) Contemp. Asian Arb. J. 107. 英文博士論文 Ma, Winnie (Jo-Mei) (2005), Public Policy in the Judicial Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Lessons for and from Australia (unpublished S.J.D. thesis, Bond University). 英文其他資料 Abrahim aham Golshani v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 546-812-3 (2 Mar 1993), reprinted in 29 Iran-US CTR 78. Alan Craig v Ministry of Energy of Iran, Award No. 71-346-3 (2 Sept 1983), reprinted in 3 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 280. Arbitration Act 1996, U.K., 17 June 1996, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1#Legislation-Preamble. Arthur J Fritz & Co. v Sherkate Tavonie SherkathayeSakhtemanie (Cooperation Society of Construction Companies), Award No. 426-276-3 (30 June 1989), reprinted in 22 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 170. Avco Corporation v Iran Aircraft Industries, Partial Award No. 377-261-3 (18 July 1988), reprinted in 19 Uran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 200. Benjamin R Isaiah v Bank Mellat, Award No. 35-219-2 (30 Mar 1983), reprinted in 2 Iran-US CYR 232. Brain v. Whitehaven Rly Co (1850)3 HL Cas 1 at 19; Mahadevan v Mahadervan [1964] P 233 at 243; Re Fuld’s Estate (No 3) [1968] P 675. British Ins. Co. of Cayman v. Water Sheet Ins. Co. Ltd., 93 F.Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Brown & Root, Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 50, Chamber One, Order of 4 Jan 1993. Brown v. Thornton (1837) 6 Ad & E1. Carter v. Ferraro, court of Appeal of Naples, 20th Febuary 1975. CMI International, Inc. v Ministry of Roads and Transportation et al., Award No. 99-245-2(27 Dec 1983), reprinted in 4 Iran-US CTR, 263. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Fr.). Collins Systems International, Inc. v The Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 526-431-1 (20 Jan 1992), reprinted in 28 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 21. Commonwealth v. Clark, 292 Mass. 409, 415, 198 N.E. 641. Dadras International at al. v The Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Awards No. 567-213/215-3 (7 Nov 1995), reprinted in 31Iran-US CTR 127. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. N National Bank of Pakistan [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223. Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, http://www.iusct.org/general-declaration.pdf. Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, http://www.iusct.org/claims-settlement.pdf. Dic of Delaware, Inc. v Tehran Development Corporation et al., Award No. 176-255-3 (26 Apr 1985), reprinted in 8 Iran-US CTR, 144. Dissenting Opinion of Richard C. Allison in Arthur J. Fritz & Co. v Sherkate Tavonie Sherkathaye SAlhtemanie, Award No. 426-276-3 (30 June 1989), reprinted in 22 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 183. Doctor’s Assoc., Inc. v. Distajo, 66 F.3d 438, 448 (2d Cir. 1995). Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 58 F.Supp. 2d 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Dresser Industries, Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran and SSK Magcobar Iran, Case Nos. 107, 109 & 110, Chamber Three, Order of 27 Jan 1983. European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, 21 April 1961, http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/ddcaron/Documents/RPID%20Documents/rp04011.html#art9. Fairchild & Co. v. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac R.R. Co., 516 F.Supp. 1305 (D.D.C. 1981). FED. R. CIV. P. Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. (1990). Flexi-Van Leasing Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 36, Chamber One, Order of 15 Dec 1982, reprinted in Iran-US CTR, 455. Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Awards No. 259-36-1 (13 Oct 1986), reprinted in 12 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 335. Frederica Lincoln Riahi v The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 600-485-1 (27 Feb 2003), Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Charles N Brower. Frederica Lincoln Riahi v The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 485, Chamber One, Order 0f 23 Feb 1993. G.A. Res. 31/98, U.N. Doc. A/Res/31/98 (15 December 1976). Generica Ltd. V Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., 125 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 1997). GERMAN CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, F.R.G. , 1 January 1998, http://www.sccinstitute.com/_upload/shared_files/lagar/german%20arbitration%20act.pdf. Grune and Stratton, Inc. v Iran, Award No. 359-10059-1, reprinted in 18 Iran-US CTR, 224. H.A. Spalding, Inc. v Ministry of Roads and Transport of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 212-437-3 (24 Feb 1986), reprinted in 10 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 22. Harris International Telecommunication, Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran, partial Award No. 323-409-1 (2 Nov 1987), reprinted in 7 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 31. Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Partial Award No. 323-409-1 (2 Nov 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 31. Harvey Alum. V. United Steelworkers of America, 263 F.Supp. 488 (C.D.Cal. 1967). Henry F. Teichman, Inc. v Hamadan Glass Company, Award No. 264-264-1 (12 Nov 1986), reprinted in 13 Iran-US Cl. TRib. Rep. 124. Hidetomo Shito v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 399-10273-3 (31 Oct 1988), reprinted in 19 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 321. High Court of the Hong Knji3uong Special Administrative Region, 16 Jan. 1998, Politek v. Hebei Yearbook XXII, 1998 pp. 666-684. Honeywell Bull S.A. cl Computation Bull de Venezuela CA, Cour d’appel de Paris (June 21, 1990), Rev. arb. (1991). Hood Corporation v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 142-100-3 (13 July 1984), reprinted in 7 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 36. Hoteles Condado Beach v. Union Troquistas Local 901, 763 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1985). Hypothetical Draft Convention on the International Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and Awards, http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12133674097980/hypothetical_draft_convention_ajbrev06.pdf. IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, 1 June 1991, http://www.asser.nl/ica/documents/cms_ica_4_1_IBA_ROE2.pdf. ICC final report on construction industry arbitrations, http://www1.fidic.org/resources/contracts/icc_arbs_FinalReport_2001.pdf. INA Corporation v The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 184-161-1 (13 Aug 1985), reprinted in 8 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 373. INA Corporation v The Islamic Republic of Iran, award No. 184-161-1 (12 Aug 1985) at 14, reprinted in 8 Iran-US CTR 373. Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, 30 January 1975, O.A.S.T.S. No. 42, 14 I.L.M. 336, http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=31620. Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation v. Banque Arabe et Internationale d’Investissements; Year Book XXIVa (1999), p.603. InterCarbon Bermuda, Ltd v. Caltex Trading and Transport Corp., 146 F.R.D. 4, 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). International Dispute Resolution Procedures – International Arbitration Rules of International Centre for Dispute Resolution and American Arbitration Association, 1 March 2008, http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=33994. Iran Ore Company of Canada v. Argonaut Shipping, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1985), ICCA Yearbook XII (1987). Iran-US Claims Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 3 May 1983, http://www.iusct.org/tribunal-rules.pdf. Iron Ore Company of Canada v Argonaut Shipping, Inc. (S.D.N.Y 1985), ICCA Yearbook XII (1987), 173. John Carl Warnecke and Associates v The bank Mellat, Award No. 72-124-3 (2 Sept 1983), reprinted in 3 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 256. Karaha Bodas Co LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara. Kimberly-Clark Corp. v Bank Markazi Iran et al., Award No. 46-57-2 (25 May 1983), reprinted in 2 Iran-US CTR, 334. Korner v. Witkowitzer [1950] 2 KB 128 at 162-163, [1950] 1 All ER 558. La Societé National des Hydrocarbures v. Shaheen National Resource Inc. 585 F.Supp. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). Laminiors etc. v. Southwire Co., 484 F.Supp.1063 (N.D. Ga. 1981). Standard Tankers, etc. v. Motor Tank Vessel AKTI, 483 F.Supp. 153 (E.D.N.C. 1977). Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 2 to 5) [2001] EWCA Civ. 1805, [2002] Q.B. 783. Mahadevan v. Mahadervan [1964] P 233. MCA Incorporated v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 768, Chamber Two, Order of 6 Oct 1983. Vera-Jo on her own behalf, on behalf of Laura Aryeh, on behalf of JM Aryeh and The Islamic Republic of Iran, Case Nos. 842, Chamber One, Order of 6 Mar 1992. Minmetals Germany v. Ferco Steel, Vol. XXIV (1999) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 739. National Casualty Company v. First State Insurance Group, Case No. 05-1505 (U.S. Court of Appeal for the First Circuit 2005). National Oil Corp. v. Lybian Sun Oil Co., 733 F.Supp. 800 (D.Del. 1990). Oil Field of Texas, Inc. v Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No. 258-43-1 (8 Oct 1986), reprinted in 12 Iran-US CTR, 308. Order of 15 Sept. 1983 in Foremost Tehran, Inc. v The Government of Iran, Case Nos. 37 and 231, Chamber One, reprinted in 3 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 361. Paklito Investment Pty Ltd. V. Klockner East Asis Ltd. [1993] 2 HKLR 39 (Hong Kong). Parker Case, 4 R. INT’L ARB. Awards 39 (1926). Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. Inc. v. Société Générale de l;Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) 508 F. 2d 969 (2d Cir. 1974). Patuha v PLN. Philips Petroleum Company Iran v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 425-39-2 (29 June 1989), reprinted in 21 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 79. Pomeroy Corporation v Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 51-41-3 (8 June 1983), reprinted in 2 Iran-US CTR, 391. Quarterly communiqué, http://www.iusct.org/communique-english.pdf. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 145-35-3 (6 Aug 1984), reprinted in 7 Iran-US CTR, 181. R.N. Pomeroy et al. v Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 50-40-3 (8 June 1983), reprinted in 2 Iran-US CTR, 372. Report of the UNCITRAL on the Work of its Ninth Session, UN GAOR, 31st Session, Supp No. 17, UN Doc A/31/17. Rexnord Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 21-132-3 (10 Jan 1983), reprinted in 2 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 6. Reza Said Malek v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 534-193-3 (11 Aug 1992), reprinted in 28 Iran-US CTR 246. Ronald Stuart Koehler v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 223-11713-1 (16 Apr 1986), reprinted in Iran-US CTR, 337. Rules of Arbitration of International Chamber of Commerce, 1 January 1998, http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/Court/Arbitration/other/rules_arb_english.pdf. Sargent v. Massachusttes Accident Co., 307 Mass. 246, 29 N. E.2d 825 (1940). Sesostris v. Trasportes Navales 727 F. Supp. 737 (D. Mass. 1989). Société Soubaigne cl Société Limmareds Akogar, Cour d’appel de Paris (March 15, 1984), Rev. arb. (1985). Starrett Housing Corp v Iran, Award No. 314-24-1, reprinted in 16 Iran-US C.T.R., 196. Status: 1958- Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html. Summary Record of the 9th Meeting of the Committee of the Whole (II), U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/9/C.2/SR.9 (16 April 1976), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/travaux/arbitration/1976Arbitration/ACN99C2SR9.pdf. Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 21 (2d Cir. 1997). Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Maharaj, 859 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th Dist App. 2003). The Arbitration Rules of London Court of International Arbitration, 1 January 1998, http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/lcia.arbitration.rules.1998/. The Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, 1923, http://interarb.com/vl/g_pr1923. The Swedish Arbitration Act 1999, Swed., 4 March 1999, http://www.chamber.se/?id=23746. Thomas Earl Payne v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 335, Chamber Two, Order of 12 Dec. 1983. Time Incorporated v The Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Award No. 139-16602 (29 June 1984), reprinted in 7 Iran-US CTR, 8. Transit Casualty Co. v. Trenwick Reinsurance Co., 659 F.Supp. 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Tribunal Superior de Justicia 1997 Malden Mills Inc (U.S.) v. Hilaturas Lourdes S.A. (Mex). UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 15 December 1976, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules/arb-rules.pdf. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 7 July 2006, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf. UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings, 14 Jane 1996, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-notes/arb-notes-e.pdf. UNIF. ARB. ACT (2000). United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf. United Painting Company, Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran, award No. 458-11286-1 (20 Dec 1989), reprinted in 23 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 351. United States Court of Appeals, seventh Circuit, 19 Sep. 1997, No. 96-4004, Generica Limited v. Pharmaceuticals Basics Inc. University of California at Berkeley's school of information management and systems, how much information? 2003, http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/. Vera-Jo Miller Aryeh et al. v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 581-842/843/844-1 (22 May 1997), reprinted in 33 Iran-US CTR 272. W Jack Buckamier v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 528-94 1-3 (6 Mar 1992), reprinted in 28 Iran-US CTR 53. William J. Levitt v Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No. 520-210-3 (29 Aug 1999), reprinted in 27 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 145. William L. Pereira Associates, Iran v The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 116-1-3 (19 Mar 1984), reprinted in 5 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 198. XL Insurance Ltd v. Owens Corning [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 530, 541, per Toulson J. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9271 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 隨著國際貿易與金融市場的蓬勃發展，單純倚靠傳統民事訴訟已不足以應付跨國商務爭端的需求，因此，較迅速且具有彈性的國際商務仲裁機制逐漸受到重視，甚至成為國際商務契約的重要條款之一。相較於訴訟程序而言，國際商務仲裁以高度尊重當事人自治並允許較具彈性的程序為其特色，然而，也正由於仲裁並無一套必須強制進行之程序規範，當事人或仲裁庭如何在個案中依情況擇定適當之程序規則，即成為重要而複雜之課題。仲裁程序中，又以證據蒐集與調查程序最為耗費時間與成本，且與最終判斷結果休戚相關，因此，如何在個案中擇定並適用妥當之證據法則，實屬不可忽視之問題。
在實務上，許多因素皆可能影響前階段仲裁程序證據法規之擇定，包括仲裁各項準據法、貿易特性、締約與交易地點、當事人與仲裁人之法系背景，以及其他各種個案事實因素。然而，擇定不適當之證據法則更可能導致後階段仲裁判斷承認與執行產生障礙，影響仲裁制度之效率，進一步減低當事人使用仲裁之意願。 本文鑒於國際商務仲裁制度就跨國貿易紛爭之解決有相當之重要性，而證據法則在仲裁程序中又居於舉足輕重之角色，故藉由蒐集國際商務仲裁與證據法則相關之各國仲裁法、仲裁規則、實務案例與學說見解，針對目前國際商務仲裁證據程序之現況加以釐清，進一步探討是否有慣例或共識形成之可能，以某程度提供當事人預測之空間。此外，亦從商業成本分析之觀點，檢討目前對於各證據議題之見解妥當性，並對紐約公約第五條第一項第(b)與(d)款有關正當程序與折衷之仲裁地法原則等加以分析，進而提出解釋與修正之建議，試圖建立擇定適當仲裁程序規則法之基本架構與其應注意之要素，以避免仲裁判斷無法承認或執行之不利情事。最後，以國際商務仲裁架構為基礎，回顧檢討我國仲裁法制與實務判決，做為未來解釋與發展之借鏡。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | As international business and financial market vigorously thrives, traditional civil litigation is not considered enough to meet the needs of transnational commercial disputes. International commercial arbitration hence becomes important with its special character of efficiency and flexibility. The arbitration agreement is also considered to be one of the most significant clauses in transnational contract. Comparing to civil litigation, international commercial arbitration is known as one system that allows more flexible procedure and highly respects the principle of party autonomy. However, it is just because arbitration does not impose a mandatory set of procedural rules that how to determine and conduct in the manner as parties and arbitral tribunals consider appropriate in each case remains to be an important and complex issue. Among arbitral proceedings, the procedure relating to evidence collection and investigation takes a lot of times and money, while closely influencing the final awards. As a result, how to decide and apply the appropriate rules of evidence in arbitration is a crucial question.
In reality, there are many factors that may affect the determination of rules of evidence in arbitration, including the applicable laws, characteristic of the transaction in dispute, place of contract and performance, the background of parties and arbitrators, and so on. Nevertheless, inappropriate determination no matter made by parties or arbitral tribunal will lead to dispute at the stage of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, which eliminates incentives to use arbitration as an efficient dispute resolution method. With the acknowledgement of the significance of international commercial arbitration in the field of transnational trade dispute resolution, and the important role of the rules of evidence in arbitral proceedings, this paper aims to collect arbitration laws, procedural rules, cases and critic opinions relating to the evidential issues in international commercial arbitration, to analyze the current situation of the application of rules of evidence, and further figure out its tendency. In addition, this paper also tries to help assaying the current opinion on the application of evidential rules in the perspective of the cost control and management. International jurisprudence produced by case law also serves as a baseline of the fundamental procedural rights under the principle of due process, which closely related to grounds for refusal of enforcement under the New York Convention. This paper also addresses the appropriateness of lex loci arbitri imposed in the ground for refusal of enforcement and makes further suggestions on this matter to solve the existing problems. By analyze the above two grounds, it is hoped to establish a basic structure in selecting appropriate rules of evidence and raise some elements which are needed to be noticed, to avoid obstacle at the stage of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Finally, this paper reviews the arbitration law and the practice of Taiwan on the basis of such structure to make suggestions on explanation and development of the arbitration system in the future. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T20:15:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R95a21055-1.pdf: 7046366 bytes, checksum: c56a087c6104361d052c7d2c8a644db8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 I
Abstract III 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究方法 3 第四節 研究範圍與架構 5 第一項 研究範圍 6 第二項 各章節欲處理之具體問題 6 第三項 研究架構 7 第二章 國際商務仲裁之證據法則在仲裁程序中之角色及其選定 9 第一節 緒論：證據法則在國際商務仲裁程序中之地位 9 第一項 證據法則之重要性與程序共通性 9 第二項 證據法則於仲裁程序中之獨特性 12 第一款 英美法系與大陸法系傳統證據概念之本質差異 12 第二款 對於仲裁判斷結果之密切影響 13 第三款 具體詳細法律依據之欠缺 13 第四款 技術與細節性質 14 第五款 時間與成本在整體仲裁程序中所占之重要比例 14 第三項 小結：程序共通性與獨特性之雙重特徵 14 第二節 仲裁程序規則與仲裁程序準據法概念之釐清 14 第一項 仲裁實體關係準據法與仲裁程序準據法之區別 15 第一款 實體法與程序法之糾葛 15 第二款 仲裁程序準據法之獨立性 16 第三款 仲裁程序準據法與實體關係準據法之適用範圍 16 第四款 國際商務仲裁準據法之分類 17 第二項 仲裁程序準據法之決定—所在地理論與去內國化理論 18 第一款 所在地理論 18 第一目 核心概念 18 第二目 理論依據 18 第三目 相關立法例 20 第四目 所在地理論面臨之挑戰與反思 21 第二款 去內國化理論 22 第一目 核心概念 22 第二目 理論依據 22 第三目 所遭遇之障礙與國際現實 23 第三款 小結 24 第三項 仲裁程序規則與仲裁程序準據法之關係 25 第三節 當事人自治原則與國際商務仲裁證據法則之協議選定 26 第一項 當事人自治原則之理論與意涵 26 第二項 當事人選定仲裁證據法則之法律依據與實踐 27 第一款 仲裁機構規則 27 第二款 非機構仲裁：以聯合國貿易法委員會仲裁規則為例 28 第三款 內國仲裁法與聯合國貿易法委員會國際商務仲裁模範法 29 第四款 小結 29 第三項 當事人決定仲裁證據法則時可能考量之因素 30 第四節 仲裁庭選定仲裁證據法則之裁量權 31 第五節 小結 32 第三章 國際商務仲裁程序之證據容許性與舉證責任之分配 33 第一節 緒論 33 第二節 證據法之性質—實體事項或程序事項？ 33 第一項 通論 34 第二項 證據容許性之實體/程序爭議問題 35 第三項 舉證責任之實體/程序爭議問題 36 第四項 推定之實體/程序爭議問題 37 第三節 大陸法系與英美法系間之交錯互動與其對國際商務仲裁之影響 39 第四節 國際商務仲裁之證據容許性與證據方法 42 第一項 證據容許性 42 第二項 證據方法 46 第五節 國際商務仲裁之舉證責任分配 46 第一項 舉證責任之核心意涵 46 第二項 英美法系與大陸法系下常用於國際商務仲裁舉證責任之概念 …………………….... …………….…………………………..48 第一款 英美法下之舉證責任概念 48 第一目 證據提出責任 48 第二目 說服責任 49 第二款 大陸法下之舉證責任概念 52 第一目 客觀舉證責任 52 第二目 主觀舉證責任 53 第三項 國際商務仲裁下之舉證責任分配原則 54 第一款 國際仲裁下舉證責任之意涵 54 第二款 決定國際商務仲裁舉證責任之依據 55 第三款 舉證責任之分配原則 57 第四項 國際商務仲裁舉證責任之證明度標準與證據評價 60 第一款 國際商務仲裁之證明度標準 60 第二款 國際商務仲裁之證據評價 65 第一目 利害關係人之證詞(interested party testimony) 65 第二目 文書證據之偏好 67 第三目 宣誓書 68 第六節 小結 70 第四章 國際商務仲裁證據提出命令之適用與個別證據方法所涉之程序議題 72 第一節 緒論 72 第二節 國際商務仲裁證據提出命令之適用 73 第一項 英美法系與大陸法系之傳統理論：法理與價值判斷之探討 73 第一款 英美法系之事證開示制度 74 第二款 大陸法系之事案解明協力義務與證明妨礙理論 74 第三款 兩大法系基本概念差異之分析：一般與限定之事案解明協力義務 76 第四款 國際商務仲裁採用事證開示制度與證明妨礙理論之需求及優缺點 77 第二項 國際商務仲裁適用證據提出命令之法律依據 78 第一款 利用證據提出命令從當事人一方取得相關事證 78 第二款 利用證據提出命令從第三人取得相關事證 80 第三項 納入仲裁協議或仲裁職權範圍書之問題 82 第四項 證據提出命令之內容與範圍 84 第五項 國際仲裁實務對於證據提出命令准否之衡量標準 85 第六項 違反證據提出命令之法律效果 86 第一款 仲裁庭依據其他證據逕為判斷 87 第二款 仲裁地法院之協助 87 第七項 小結：仲裁程序效率與公平性之衡量 91 第三節 書證 94 第一項 文書之真實性證明與提出原本之必要性 94 第二項 國際商務仲裁書證呈現方式之重要性與新興趨勢 95 第一款 書證呈現方式之重要性 95 第二款 書證編排技巧與實務習慣 96 第三款 新興電子文書管理系統之使用趨勢 97 第三項 「文書戰役」現象與審前會議之功能 98 第四項 遲延提出書證採納與否之問題 99 第一款 文書遲延提交之可能情形 99 第二款 國際商務仲裁實務對遲延文書之處理態度及權限 99 第三款 遲延提出文書之採納標準 100 第四節 人證 103 第一項 仲裁庭傳喚證人之權限與執行機制 103 第一款 傳喚證人之裁量權限與法律依據 103 第二款 證人到場命令之執行與監督 104 第二項 證人以書面陳述之准許性與相關議題 105 第一款 國際仲裁實務對書面陳述之態度與相關法律依據 105 第二款 證人書面陳述之形式與宣誓是否必要之議題 106 第三項 國際商務仲裁人證呈現之準備方式 107 第一款 對證人可信度之攻防 107 第二款 預先提出人證資料摘要之必要性 108 第三款 當事人與證人事前接觸之限制 108 第四款 影音做證之適用可能性 109 第四項 仲裁庭採行交互詰問制度所涉之問題 109 第一款 交互詰問制度於國際商務仲裁之適用可能性與法律依據 ...…109 第二款 詰問前進行宣誓與具結程序之必要性探討 110 第三款 交互詰問進行之程序與方式 111 第五節 專家鑑定 112 第一項 鑑定人選任之權限：當事人聘請或仲裁庭指定 112 第一款 兩大法系之融合與選任鑑定人之法律依據 112 第二款 當事人陳述意見權利之保障 114 第三款 當事人自行聘請鑑定人之權限與限制 114 第二項 是否尋求鑑定人意見之考量因素 115 第三項 具體選任鑑定人與其應具備之資格 116 第四項 專家鑑定爭點整理範圍書之重要性與基本要素 117 第五項 國際商務仲裁專家鑑定意見之準備與呈現方式 118 第一款 鑑定人之證據調查及當事人之協力 118 第二款 初步鑑定意見之草擬與提交 119 第三款 鑑定人出席聽證會與接受口頭詰問之義務：當事人聽審權之確保 ..120 第四款 最終鑑定報告之做成與仲裁庭之證據衡量義務 121 第六節 勘驗 122 第一項 仲裁庭之勘驗權限 122 第二項 勘驗之程序與當事人到場權 122 第七節 小結 123 第五章 證據法則與仲裁判斷承認與執行之障礙 126 第一節 紐約公約之重要性及其與程序擇定之關聯 126 第二節 紐約公約第五條拒絕仲裁判斷承認與執行之規定 127 第一項 第五條第一項(b)款正當程序之要求 129 第一款 正當程序之定義與範疇 129 第二款 相關實務見解及其發展 131 第一目 未受適當程序通知之案例 131 第二目 拒絕攻擊防禦機會之案例 132 第三目 證據容許性之案例 133 第四目 未充分揭露對造文書之案例 133 第五目 逾期提出證據之案例 133 第六目 證據開示命令之核發與反面推論之案例 134 第七目 聽證會及交互詰問之准否案例 135 第八目 以宣誓書替代原書證之案例 137 第九目 逾時提出程序異議之禁反言案例 138 第三款 小結 138 第二項 紐約公約第五條第一項(d)款「折衷的仲裁地法原則」 139 第一款 仲裁地法原則與紐約公約之演變 139 第二款 仲裁庭選擇之證據法則與仲裁地法相異之結果 141 第三節 未簽署紐約公約國家關於證據法則之仲裁判斷承認與執行障礙：以我國仲裁法為例 143 第一項 我國仲裁法第四十九條與第五十條駁回外國仲裁判斷承認聲請事由及其與紐約公約之關係 143 第二項 相關拒絕承認與執行事由所涉問題及我國法院實務之解釋適用 ..145 第一款 未受適當通知或欠缺正當程序 145 第一目 以當事人約定或仲裁庭決定之程序規則為判斷標準 ……………………………………………………………………. ……..146 第二目 以仲裁規則明文規定為限 148 第三目 形式審查 149 第四目 排除主動放棄參與仲裁程序權利之情形 150 第五目 小結 150 第二款 仲裁程序違反當事人約定或仲裁地法 151 第四節 證據法則與仲裁判斷承認與執行關係之再建構 152 第一項 正當程序之標準 152 第一款 特定法系程序之選擇自由 152 第二款 應以當事人約定之仲裁程序或程序準據法為判斷標準 152 第三款 商業成本考量與利益衡量法則之適用 153 第二項 仲裁地法與仲裁庭所擇程序之位階：限縮仲裁地法之適用 155 第一款 修訂條文之用語 155 第二款 對現有條文採取限縮解釋之途徑 156 第五節 小結 158 第六章 結論 160 參考文獻 164 附錄 ：ICC 專家鑑定爭點整理範圍書 179 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 國際商務仲裁證據法則與其所涉仲裁判斷之承認及執行 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration and Its Effects on Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 沈冠伶 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李念祖,楊淑文 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 國際商務仲裁,證據法則,當事人自治,仲裁判斷之承認與執行,紐約公約,正當程序,折衷之仲裁地法原則, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | international commercial arbitration,rules of evidence,party autonomy,recognition and enforcement of arbitral award,the New York Convention,due process,the compromised principle of lex loci arbitri, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 189 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2009-07-14 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 法律學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-98-1.pdf | 6.88 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。