摘要
在《仲裁法(修订)(征求意见稿)》的体系安排下,仲裁条款中未约定仲裁机构的涉外仲裁案件与非涉外的内国仲裁案件同等适用征求意见稿第35条第4款,通过共同住所地或第三地的仲裁机构采取机构仲裁的方式进行仲裁,而非临时仲裁。然而,第35条第4款如适用于涉外仲裁,将导致适用主体是否包括外国仲裁机构、共同住所地或第三地是否包含我国领域外地点等解释上的困惑,亦使得临时仲裁平等适用于内外仲裁的愿望落空。各国司法实践表明,未约定仲裁机构之涉外仲裁采用临时仲裁,具有可行性。为顺应我国仲裁国际化发展趋势,应在《仲裁法》“涉外仲裁的特别规定”专章下,明确规定未约定仲裁机构之涉外仲裁采用临时仲裁。
Under the systematic arrangement of the Arbitration Law(Revision)(Draft for Comments), a foreign-related arbitration case for which no arbitral agency has been agreed upon in the arbitration clause shall equally apply to the paragraph 4, Article 35 of the Draft for Comments as a non-foreign-related domestic arbitration case, that is, the case shall be arbitrated by an arbitral agency at the common domicile or a third place in the method of institutional arbitration rather than ad hoc arbitration. However, the application of paragraph 4, Article 35, if applied to foreign-related arbitration, will cause confusion in interpretation as to whether the applicable parties include foreign arbitral agency or whether the common domicile or third place includes a place outside of China. It also frustrates the desire of ad hoc arbitration being equally applied to non-foreign and foreign arbitrations. The judicial practices of various countries have proved the feasibility of ad hoc arbitration for foreignrelated arbitration without an agreed arbitral agency. To comply with the development trend of the internationalization of arbitration in China, it should be expressly provided in the chapter of “Special Provisions on Foreign-related Arbitration” of the Arbitration Law that ad hoc arbitration shall be adopted for foreign-related arbitration without an agreed arbitral agency.
出处
《商事仲裁与调解》
2022年第5期44-58,共15页
Commercial Arbitration & Mediation
关键词
未约定仲裁机构
涉外仲裁
临时仲裁
《仲裁法》
without an agreed arbitral agency
foreign-related arbitration
ad hoc arbitration
Arbitration Law
