查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 試論我國現行仲裁程序之不備--檢視仲裁法第十九條規定的缺失=Shortcomings of Current Arbitration Procedures in Taiwan--An Examination of Problems Caused by Article 19 of Arbitration Law |
---|---|
作 者 | 黃日燦; | 書刊名 | 經社法制論叢 |
卷 期 | 32 2003.07[民92.07] |
頁 次 | 頁35-65 |
分類號 | 589.42 |
關鍵詞 | 仲裁法第十九條; 仲裁程序規則; 民事訴訟法; 適當程序; 當事人自主權; 撤銷仲裁判斷之訴; Article 19 of arbitration law; Arbitration procedural rules; Civil procedural law; Proper procedure; Party autonomy; Lawsuit to revoke arbitral awards; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 我國仲裁法第19條規定:「當事人就仲裁程序未約定者,適用本法之規定;本法未規定者,仲裁庭得準用民事訴訟法或依其認為適當之程序進行。」乍看之下,上述仲裁法規定似已提供當事人可以遵循的仲裁程序規則,並授予當事人得約定仲裁程序的自主權。但進一步探討,卻可發現該法條規定籠統模糊,是我國仲裁法規定的嚴重缺失。 我國仲裁法第19條立法理由載明該法條是繼受《1985聯合國國際商務仲裁模範法》相關規定。本文乃根據聯合國模範法的規定,參考與我國同屬大陸法系的德、日等國家仲裁法制,由比較法觀點檢視仲裁法第19條的立法沿革和意旨。其次,本文由該法條所定當事人可依次選用的程序規則,即「當事人約定之程序」、「仲裁法規定之程序」、「民事訴訟法規定之程序」及「仲裁庭認為適當之程序」等,分析實務上可能產生的問題,並檢討該法條規定的缺失,特別指出基於我國仲裁法第40條有關「仲裁程序違反法律規定」得撤銷仲裁判斷之規定,可能導致仲裁判斷須經法院三級三審始能定案的纏訟後果,違悖仲裁制度快審速結的基本精神。最後,本文提出三點建議,即重新建構仲裁法第19條規定、建構標準仲裁程序規則、以及重新建構仲裁法第40條撤銷仲裁判斷事由之規定,以代結論。 |
英文摘要 | Article 19 of the Arbitration Law provides that: “In the absence of an agreement on the procedural rules governing the arbitration, the arbitral tribunal shall apply this Law. Where this Law is silent, the arbitral tribunal may adopt the Code of Civil Procedure mutatis mutandis or other rules of procedure which it deems proper.” Upon initial observation, it appears that the above provision furnishes a system of arbitration procedural rules that the parties can easily follow, and grants autonomy to the parties by giving discretion over the procedural rules to be used. However, further examinations reveal that the provision is ambiguous and createds a severe deficiency in the Arbitration Law. The legislative reasons for Article 19 of the Arbitration Law state that its provision follows the relevant provision of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. This article examines the legislative history and purpose of Article 19 of the Arbitration Law, by reference to the relevant UN Model Law provision, combined with a comparative study of the relevant provisions of the arbitration laws of the Germany and Japan, both being civil-law countries like Taiwan. This article also analyzes the problems likely to arise from the implementation of the procedural rules that may be used by the parties as provided in said Article 19, including procedures agreed upon by the parties, procedures provided by the Arbitration Law, procedures provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, and procedures deemed proper by the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, this article highlights that as a result of the deficiencies of said Article 19, coupled with Article 40 of the Arbitration Law permitting an arbitral award to be revoked on the ground of “arbitral proceedings in violation of laws”, an arbitral award may be subjected to the mercy of court examination through three-levels and three-trials and run contrary to the fundamental spirits of swift proceedings of the arbitration system. In conclusion, this article presents three proposal for consideration-reconstruction of Article 19 of the Arbitration Law, establishment of standard arbitration procedural rules, and reconstruction of the grounds for revoking arbitral awards specified in Article 40 of the Arbitration Law. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。