國際商務仲裁之仲裁容許性問題:兼論統一規則建構

Issues of Arbitrability in International Commercial Arbitration：Possibility of Creation of Uniform Rules

10.6342/NTU201603868

李婉齊

國際商務仲裁 ； 仲裁容許性 ； 禁止仲裁 ； 紐約公約 ； 國際商事仲裁示範法 ； 訴訟 ； international commercial arbitration ； arbitrability ； non-arbitrability ； New York Convention ； UNCITRAL Model Law ； litigation

國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所學位論文

2016年

碩士

羅昌發

繁體中文

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.

1. 曾宛如 (2012)。《證券交易法原理》，台北：元照。
   連結：
2. 吳光明 (2006)。〈仲裁協議之自由與限制-兼論爭議之可仲裁性〉，《財產法暨經濟法》， 8期，頁1-27。
   連結：
3. 林金榮 (2004)。〈證券終止上市之公權力性質及其仲裁容許性爭議之研究--最高法院九十一年臺上字第二三六七號判決評釋〉，《律師雜誌》，297期，頁48-61。
   連結：
4. 林彩瑜 (2014)。〈國際投資仲裁程序與公共衛生之關聯：以菸品控制爭端為例〉，《臺大法學論叢》，43 卷 3 期，頁 549-585。
   連結：
5. 許家誠(2015)。〈TPP草案投資仲裁之新發展〉，《萬國法律》，204期，頁74-78。
   連結：
6. 黃國昌(2010)，〈案件分配、司法中立與正當法律程序──以美國聯邦地方法院之規範為中心──〉，《東吳法律學報》，第21卷第4期，頁155-206。
   連結：
7. 楊淑文(2013)。〈定型化契約之管制與契約自由 ——德國與我國法制發展之比較分析〉，《政大法學評論》，132期，頁163-213。
   連結：
8. 藍瀛芳(2007)。〈爭議處理條款之契約規劃上〉，《營建知訊》，第297期，頁69-74。
   連結：
9. 陳希佳(2014)。《從大陸司法實踐論紐約公約第五條公共政策之可預測性》，，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所博士論文，台北。
   連結：
10. Bagheri, Mahmood (2000), International Contracts and National Economic Regulation : Dispute Resolution through International Commercial Arbitration
    連結：
11. Lew, Julian D. M., Mistelis, Loukas A. & Kroll, Stefan(2003), Comparative International Commercial Arbitration.
    連結：
12. Pietro, Domenico Di & Platte, Martin (2001), Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards : The New York Convention of 1958
    連結：
13. Redfern, Alan & Hunter, Martin (1999), Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration.
    連結：
14. Synkova, Sandra (2013), Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage.
    連結：
15. Rubino-Sammartano, Mauro (ed.)(3rd, 2014), International Arbitration Law and Practice.
    連結：
16. Bantekas, Ilias (2008), The Foundations Of Arbitrability In International Commercial Arbitration, 27 Australian Year Book of International Law 193.
    連結：
17. Bantekas, Illias (2009), Arbitrability in Fiance and Banking, in Arbitrability: International & Comparative Perspectives.
    連結：
18. Bennett, Steven C. (2010), The Developing American Approach to Arbitrability, in AAA Handbook On Commercial Arbitration.
    連結：
19. Frolov, Oleksandr (2016), Arbitrability Of Disputes Related To The Privatization Of State-Owned Property In Ukraine, 3 Russia Law Journal 94.
    連結：
20. Kozubovska, Beata (2014), Trends in Arbitrability, 1 IALS Student Law Review 20.
    連結：
21. Olatawura, Olakunle O. (2003), Delocalized Arbitration under the English Arbitration Act 1996: an evolution or a revolution, 30 Syracuse J. Int’l L & Com 49.
    連結：
22. Rogers, Catherine A. (2006), Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration, 54 Kansas Law Review 1301.
    連結：
23. Szczekala-Liharewska, Justyna (2013), Arbitrability of Consumer Financial Disputes between Banks and their Private Clients in Selected Jurisdictions, No. 3-4 (14-15) Arbitration e-Review, Polish Court of Arbitration , 37.
    連結：
24. Sumer, Murat (2008), Jurisdiction of Sovereign States and International Commercial Arbitration: A Bound Relationship, Ankara Bar Review 55.
    連結：
25. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Possible Future Work in the Field of Settlement of Commercial Disputes , A/CN.9/610 (5 April 2006).
    連結：
26. United Nations Commission On International Trade Law, UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2012).
    連結：
27. Audzevičius, Ramūnas & Daujotas, Rimantas, Arbitrability of Disputes Arising from Public Procurement Contracts – Lithuanian Example, SSRN (June 18, 2012), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2086349.
    連結：
28. Srinivasan, Badrinath, Arbitrability of Claims Relating to Fraud: Recent Developments in India, SSRN (January 1, 2010), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1530182.
    連結：
29. Lee, Joseph, Intra-Corporate Dispute Arbitration and Minority Shareholder Protection: A Corporate Governance Perspective, SSRN (February 23, 2015), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2736981.
    連結：
30. 一、中文文獻
31. 吳庚(2007)。《行政法之理論與實用》，增訂十版，台北：三民。
32. 吳光明、俞鴻玲(2013)。《國際商務仲裁理論與發展》，台北：翰蘆。
33. 劉漢廷(編)。(2015)，《促參爭議問題與實務》，台北：中華民國仲裁協會。
34. 楊崇森、黃正宗、范光群、張迺良、林俊益、李念祖、朱麗容 (2008)。《仲裁法新論》，台北：中華民國仲裁協會。
35. 何震，方菲 (2003)。〈關於美國證券仲裁發展的幾個重要判例評析〉，《河北法學》，第21卷第6 期，頁115-123。
36. 李劍非（2014）。〈撤銷仲裁判斷之事由得否由當事人約定？ 以美國 Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.案件為例〉，《仲裁》，第99期，頁32-60。
37. 李儀坤，林昌億，郭淑詒，(2012)。〈美日台證券仲裁相關制度之研討〉，《證券暨期貨月刊》，30 卷 6 期，頁27-37。
38. 沈冠伶，陳英鈐（2008）〈仲裁、程序選擇權與訴訟權之保障--以政府採購法第八五條之一第二項規定為例探討法定仲裁之相關問題〉，《月旦法學》，第158期，頁217-235。
39. 吳光明 (2004)。〈上市契約仲裁適格性之探討 - 兼論台灣高等法院九十二年度上更（二）字第九號判決〉，《仲裁》，72期，頁1-30。
40. 吳光明 (2010)。〈專利爭議仲裁之探討〉，《法學叢刊》，55 卷 4 期，頁 55-86。
41. 吳小燕，許登科，洪國欽（2006）。〈促參案件之爭議與仲裁〉，《仲裁季刊》，第77期，頁36-48。
42. 林明鏘（2005）。〈委託開發工業區契約之定性與仲裁容許性—兼評最高行政法院94年裁字第00470號裁定〉，《月旦法學教室》，33期，頁110-14。
43. 林金榮 (2004)。〈證券市場管理行為性質及其爭議解決機制之研究〉，《玄奘法律學報》，2期，頁 57-83。
44. 徐盛國(2001)。〈論智慧權糾紛之仲裁容許性(一)〉，《智慧財產權》，28期，頁72-95。
45. 高啟中 (2015)。〈投資人對地主國仲裁的前置程序之探討－以等待期間條款為中心〉，《中原財經法學》，35期，頁 2-7。
46. 婁天威 (2014)。〈證券業自律組織的變革與挑戰〉，《證券服務》，628期，頁40-46。
47. 許登科(2014)。〈公法契約爭議仲裁判斷之撤銷訴訟 ——以管轄法院和法院審理基準為中心〉，《成大法學》，28 期，頁 1-75頁。
48. 許登科 (2015)。〈BOT爭議仲裁之行政法觀點〉，《月旦裁判時報》，36 期，頁60-70。
49. 張艷琳(2009)。〈可仲裁性問題之比較法研究〉，《法制與社會》，5期，2009年
50. 許黃捷(2011)。〈證券仲裁的法律問題—證券交易法第166、167條及仲裁容許性〉，《月旦財經法雜誌》，26期，頁97-117。
51. 曹志勛(2012)。〈論可仲裁性的司法審查標準－基於美國友壟斷仲裁經驗的考察〉，《華東政法大學學報》，4 期，頁 56-65。
52. 陳世民 (2013)。〈委託行使公權力之案例研究－行政契約 v.私法契約〉，《銘傳大學法學論叢》，19期，頁 71-96。
53. 楊月萍 (2010)。〈爭議事項可仲裁性的重新審視〉，《欽州學院學報》，25 卷 5 期，頁108-111。
54. 楊崇森(2011)。〈美國仲裁制度之新發展與全美仲裁協會之運作〉，《仲裁》，94期，頁2-38。
55. 藍瀛芳(2004)。〈仲裁人自行審認管轄原則的詮釋〉，《仲裁》，98 期，頁2-53。
56. （三）研討會論文
57. 張惠東 (2012年11月)。〈法國公私協力契約之紛爭解決〉，發表於：《行政管制與行政爭訟學術研討會》。中央研究院法律學研究所，台北。
58. （四）學位論文
59. （五）網路資料及其他
60. 經濟部國際貿易局、外交部(2014)，《英國、美國、瑞士、新加坡、紐西蘭與我國仲裁法制之比較研究各國仲裁法制比較研究》。
61. 二、外文參考文獻
62. （一）專書
63. Born, Gary B. (2nd Ed.2014), International Commercial Arbitration
64. Born, Gary B. (2006), International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements : Drafting and Enforcing
65. Lew, Julian D.M. & Mistelis, Loukas A. et al. (ed.) (2006), Arbitration Insights : Twenty Years of The Annual Lecture of The School of International Arbitration.
66. Mistelis, Loukas A. & Brekoulakis, Stavros L. et al. (ed.)(2009), Arbitrability : International and Comparative Perspectives.
67. Mistelis, Loukas A. & Lew, Julian D.M. et al. (ed.) (2006), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration
68. Savage, John & Gaillard,Emmanuel (ed.)(1999), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration.
69. （二）期刊論文
70. Baldwin, Edward, Kantor, Mark & Nolan, Michael (2006), Limits to Enforcement of ICSID Awards, 23 Journal of International Arbitration 1.
71. Belohlavek, Alexander J. (2013), Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitrability of a Dispute, 3 The Yearbook On International Arbitration, 27。
72. Bernard, Hanotiau (2014), Law Applicable to Arbitrability, 26 Singapore Academy Of Law Journal 874.
73. Barcelo, John James (2014), Arbitrability Decisions Before, During, and after Arbitration, 14(24) Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper 1.
74. Brazier, Lauren (2015), The Arbitrability of Investor-State Taxation Disputes in International Commercial Arbitration, 32 Journal Of International Arbitration 1.
75. Brand, Ronald A. (1993), International Trade Law and the Arbitration of Administrative Law Matters: Farrel Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 31 Colum Journal Transnational Law 181.
76. Friedman, George H. (2013), The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013 : A Well-Intended but Potentially Dangerous Overreaction to a Legitimate Concern, 1 Securities Arbitration Commentator 28.
77. Gibson, Christopher S. (2009), Arbitration, Civilization and Public Policy: Seeking Counterpoise between Arbitral Autonomy and the Public Policy Defense in View of Foreign Mandatory Public Law, 113(4) Penn State Law Review 101.
78. Heitzmann, Pierre (2005), A Welcome And Surprising Decision: French Administrative Supreme Court Acknowledges The Adequacy Of Arbitration To Adjudicate Disputes Arising Out Of A New Kind Of Public Private Partnership, 20(10) MEALEY’S International Arbitration Report 1.
79. Hossein, Fazilatfar(2011), Transnational Public Policy: Does it Function from Arbitrability to Enforcement? 3(2) City U. Hong Kong L. R. 289.
80. Jaberi, M. Saleh and Zeller, Bruno (2012), Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements in the Securities Exchange: Analysing the Approach of Three Systems, 9 Macquarie Journal of Business Law 199.
81. Kraayvanger, Jan & Hilgard, Mark C. (2009), Arbitraiblity of Shareholders’ Disputes under German Law, 26.1 International Litigation Quarterly 9.
82. Lehmann, Matthias (2004) , A Plea for a Transnational Approach to Arbitrability in Arbitral Practice, 42(3) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 753.
83. Lo, Chang-fa (2010), Legal and Practical Constraints of Using Commercial Arbitration to Handle Investment Disputes, 3.1 Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 7.
84. Lo, Chang-fa (2008), Principles and Criteria for International and Transnational Public Policies in Commercial Arbitration, 1.1 Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 67
85. Markert, Lars A. (2015), Arbitrating Corporate Disputes- German Approaches and International Solutions to Reconcile Conflicting Principle, 8.1 Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 29.
86. Park, William, W. (2009), Arbitrability and Tax, in Arbitrability: International & Comparative Perspectives 180.
87. Pivateau, Griffin Toronjo (2011), Private Resolution of Public Disputes: Employment, Arbitration, and the Statutory Cause of Action, Winter 2011 Pace Law Review 1.
88. Resnik, Judith (2015), Diffusing Disputes: The Public in the Private of Arbitration, the Private in Courts, and the Erasure of Rights, 49 Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 37.
89. Spelliscy, Shane (2001), Burning The Idols Of Non-Arbitrability: Arbitrating Administrative Law Disputes With Foreign Investors, 12(1) American Review of International Arbitration 1.
90. Seelig, Marie Louise (2009), The Notion of Transnational Public Policy and Its Impact on Arbitrability, Year LVIII No.3 Belgrade Law Review 116.
91. Stipanowich, Thomas (2008), Arbitration: The 'New Litigation' 1 University of Illinois Law Review 1.
92. Vincent, Jennifer (2015), Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave: The Implications of Conflicting Domestic Policy on Arbitrability and Award Enforcement, 38.1 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 141.
93. Weston, Maureen (2015), The Clash: Mandatory Arbitration and Administrative Agency and Representative Access. 89 Southern California Law Review 103.
94. （三）國際/區域組織文件
95. （四）網路及其他資料
96. Bhushan Abhinav, The Back and Forth of the Arbitrability of Fraud in India, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (February 13, 2014), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2014/02/13/the-back-and-forth-of-the-arbitrability-of-fraud-in-india/.
97. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLC, New Russian Rules On Arbitrability of Disputes, (April 4, 2016), https://www.clearygottlieb.com/~/media/cgsh/files/new-russian-rules-on-arbitrability-of-disputes.pdf.
98. Davies, Richard, England and Wales: Arbitrability of Claims which Involve Alleged Criminal Conduct, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (May 5, 2015), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/05/05/england-and-wales-arbitrability-of-claims-which-involve-alleged-criminal-conduct/.
99. Essays, UK., The Human Rights Dimensions Of Commercial Arbitration International Law Essay, Law Teacher (November 2013), http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/the-human-rights-dimensions-of-commercial-arbitration-international-law-essay.php?cref=1.
100. Kalimanov, Andrey, Disputes Arising Out of Government Contracts Not Arbitrable?, CIS Arbitration Forum (25 February, 2014), http://www.cisarbitration.com/2014/02/25/disputes-arising-out-of-government-contracts-not-arbitrable/.
101. Panov, Andrey, Court Affirms Non-Arbitrability of Disputes Involving Public Element, International Law Office (September 11, 2014), http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/court-affirms-non-arbitrability-of-disputes-involving-public-element-120796.pdf.
102. Karimullin, Rustem, The Reform of the Russian Arbitration Law: The Arbitrability of Corporate Disputes, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (October 21, 2015), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/10/21/the-reform-of-the-russian-arbitration-law-the-arbitrability-of-corporate-disputes/
103. Koh, Matthew, Singapore Court of Appeal: Prima Facie Standard for Stay in Favour of Arbitration and Arbitrability of Minority Oppression Claims, http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/03/25/singapore-court-of-appeal-affirms-prima-facie-standard-for-stay-in-favour-of-arbitration/.
104. Perepelynska, Olena, Arbitrability of Disputes Under Public Procurement Contracts In Ukraine: Recent Court Practice, CIS Arbitration Forum (August, 25 2014), http://www.cisarbitration.com/2014/08/25/arbitrability-of-disputes-under-public-procurement-contracts-in-ukraine-recent-court-practice/
105. Samoylov, Mikhail, Arbitrability of Disputes Arising out of a Concession Contract: The Russian Perspective, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (August 30, 2016), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/08/30/arbitrability-disputes-arising-concession-contract-russian-perspective/
106. Viscasillas, Maria Pilar Perales, Is a Uniform Arbitrability Rule Needed at an International Level?, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (January 5, 2016), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/01/05/is-a-uniform-arbitrability-rule-needed-at-an-international-level/.
107. Yeum, Junghye & Leong, Gerald, Singapore Court of Appeal Rules on Arbitrability, Cldeco (January 12, 2016), http://www.clydeco.com/insight/article/singapore-court-of-appeal-rules-on-arbitrability.