【作者】 周清华；

【导师】 屈广清；

【作者基本信息】 大连海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 国际商事仲裁作为解决国际商事争议一种重要的方式,已被国际社会普遍认可。国际商事仲裁的前提和基础即为仲裁的管辖权问题,管辖权问题是仲裁程序必须解决的首要问题,是仲裁程序进行的基石和条件,因此,对仲裁管辖权的决定问题展开研究具有极为重要的现实意义。自裁管辖是国际商事仲裁立法的基本原则之一,规定了仲裁庭有权裁定其管辖权。该原则包含了镜像效力,即在仲裁庭有机会就其管辖权作出裁定之前,应限制法院对仲裁庭管辖权的审查。该效力被称为“自裁管辖原则消极效力”,目前已经越来越被实践所接受,体现了国际商事仲裁的特性和自治性,并且与《纽约公约》所蕴含的承认仲裁协议以及仲裁裁决的效力的哲理完全符合。本文首先通过比较分析不同国家的仲裁立法和法理学,详述消极效力的构成要素。从法国立法和欧盟公约来看,自裁管辖原则消极效力已经逐渐超越了该原则的原有之意,作为该原则的基本侧面现已得到了很多国家的接受。本文主张自裁管辖原则积极效力与消极效力均是基于正确的理论和政策考量,尽管一时之间自裁管辖原则消极效力尚显孤立,但是近来的一个趋势是更多的仲裁立法与实践乐于接受自裁管辖原则的消极效力。然而,该问题仍然极富争议性,需要我们仔细地研究不同方法背后所隐含的政策考量。我国大多数关于自裁管辖原则的讨论,尤其是在我国文献资料中,仅涉及自裁管辖原则的积极效力,这是个简单的毫无争议的概念。本文运用比较法、实证分析法和法哲学的方法,围绕自裁管辖原则消极效力展开研究,对其持支持态度。本文尝试着就如何分配法院与仲裁庭之间的权力这一复杂的问题提出一些富有建设性的建议。本文的观点是若想在我国确立更加合理的自裁管辖原则消极效力,最适合的方法就是修改过时的《仲裁法》。在修改《仲裁法》时,应该从所讨论的各国关于自裁管辖原则消极效力所采纳的不同方法中吸收珍贵的经验。结论是我国需要现代的商事仲裁立法。更多还原

【Abstract】 As an important dispute settlement to international commercial disputes, international commercial arbitration has gained universally accepted. Jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction of arbitration is of natural necessity. The jurisdiction issue is the foundation stone of arbitration process, a comprehensive and profound study on Jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction of arbitration would no doubt benefit the international commercial arbitrationThe notion of competence-competence is one of the founding principles of international commercial arbitration law. Provides for the arbitrators’ power to rule on their own jurisdiction, this principle embodies the mirroring effect that the courts should refrain from engaging into the examination of the arbitrators’ jurisdiction before the arbitrators themselves have had an opportunity to do so.Known as the negative effect of the principle of competence-competence, this rule of priority in favor of the arbitrators, today increasingly recognized in practice, exemplifies the specific nature and autonomy of international arbitration, in full harmony with the New York Convention’s philosophy of recognition of the validity of the arbitration agreement and of the award resulting from the arbitral process.The dissertation first examines the elements of the negative competence-competence, through a comparative analysis of the arbitration legislation and jurisprudence of various national jurisdictions. As will be shown, the principle of negative competence-competence has gradually grown bigger than its origins, traced in French law and the European Convention, as fundamental aspects of the principle are now accepted in many jurisdictions. The dissertation will argue that both the positive and negative competence-competence are premised upon sound theoretical and policy considerations The complex but at the same time fascinating issue of negative competence-competence is still in the making. Nevertheless, as the dissertation showed, a series of recent legislation and practice in a number of jurisdictions show that the negative aspect of the doctrine gain continuing acceptance.Most discussions of competence-competence, especially in China literature, treat only the positive aspect of the doctrine, which is a simple and uncontroversial notion. The thesis, as guided by the basic theories of comparative laws,empirical study and jurisprudence, centers on the negative competence-competence and argues for the adoption of the negative aspect of the doctrine The dissertation concludes with some tentative suggestions on the complex issue of allocation of powers between national courts and arbitral tribunals. The more likely path to a more robust negative competence-competence doctrine in Chinese law is through legislation overhauling the outmoded Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China. In any such legislative undertaking, valuable lessons can be drawn from the various approaches to the negative competence-competence doctrine in other jurisdictions discussed above. A legislative solution would allow a nuanced and balanced approach. The upshot then is another call for a modern China arbitration statute.更多还原