摘要
联合国大会在2007年12月6日通过的第62/65号决议中指出，仲裁作为国际商业关系中解决争议的一种办法很有价值，有助于形成和谐的商业关系，推动国际贸易和发展，并推动国际和国家层面的法治。仲裁，作为一种代替性争议解决机制，在如今的国际贸易交往中正起着不可替代的作用。尤其，在跨境贸易中，仲裁被认为是一种可以抵御一国法院地方保护主义的中立机制。然而，拿到一份有利于当事人的仲裁裁决并不是争议纠纷的最终胜利，仲裁胜诉方手中的裁决能否得到顺利的承认与执行直接关乎当事人的切身利益，但也同时取决于《纽约公约》各缔约国对于承认与执行外国仲裁裁决的司法实践与司法态度。
随着中国经济的迅猛发展，中国企业更多地参与到广泛的全球贸易往来中。外国企业在与我国企业进行商贸交往的同时，也更加关注中国法院对于《纽约公约》的贯彻与执行态度。鉴于中国特殊的法律体制，本文旨在通过比较研究法和案例分析法，对《纽约公约》下外国仲裁裁决在我国的承认与执行现状进行理论与实践的双重分析，并提出针对性建议，以希冀对我国的仲裁发展有所裨益。
本文主要分为四章，内容如下：
第一章为外国仲裁裁决的承认与执行概述。这一部分讨论了公约的适用范围，即主要针对外国仲裁裁决的界定进行了立法背景的梳理与分析，回顾了公约起草之初各国代表团针对外国仲裁裁决范围的讨论，同时也明晰了“地域标准”与“非内国裁决”标准的妥协与融合。另外，讨论了商事保留与互惠保留制度对公约范围的影响，简述了承认与执行的区别，以及公约下承认与执行裁决的相关程序要求。这部分内容作为文章的第一章节旨在为全文的行文奠定理论基础。
第二章为《纽约公约》下外国仲裁裁决的承认与执行的中国实践。这一部分介绍了我国加入公约之初时的基本情况和仲裁当事人在我国申请承认与执行公约裁决的程序要求，主要包括了适格法院、申请文件、申请时限及拒绝理由四个方面。
此外，该部分还介绍了我国独具特色的内部报告制度，该制度是我国在加入公约之时为了保证公约顺利执行所采用的一个人民法院内部临时制度，目的是遏制地方保护主义对公约的蚕食，同时也能缓解我国地方法院执行公约的水平差异。
除此之外，本章节着重介绍了中国国情的“非内国裁决”.“非内国裁决”在我国的特殊性直接源于我国立法对“仲裁机构”标准的偏执，这种偏执往往导致外国仲裁机构在我国大陆仲裁的情形在我国法律与公约规定的双重制度下难以两全其美，也就是这样的严重不可兼容性催生出了中国国情的“非内国裁决”.
笔者以国际商会仲裁院作为外国仲裁机构的代表，首先从其在我国大陆仲裁的合法性进行分析，该部分着重指出了包括国际商会仲裁院在内的主要外国仲裁机构的标准条款与我国法律的冲突，即绝大部分的标准条款只要求仲裁当事人选定仲裁规则，而无需选择仲裁机构本身。旭普林案的发酵最终导致了国际商会仲裁院修改了其标准条款，建议仲裁当事人在仲裁条款中明确选定仲裁机构。但同时也引发了另一问题，即选定的国际商会仲裁院能否视为我国法律下的仲裁委员会，这也直接关乎仲裁条款的有效性问题。
其次，笔者对国际商会仲裁在我国作出裁决的性质进行了分析。以宁波工艺品公司案为代表，阐述了非内国裁决的推理过程实属无奈的排除法逻辑，即该类裁决既不是我国立法下的内国裁决，也不是公约中“地域标准”下的裁决，所以属于非内国裁决。但同时需要注意，该案只是我国地方法院的一家之言，并不能代表我国的官方立场。
再次，笔者讨论了我国国情“非内国裁决”的发展与困境。2013年的龙利得案通过肯定了选定外国仲裁机构视为选定了我国法律中的“仲裁委员会”的形式，首次认可了外国仲裁机构在我国仲裁的合法性。但最高人民法院对于裁决的性质并未作明确解释，因而此问题还应有待于最高人民法院在龙利得案将来的执行阶段予以明晰。
第三章为拒绝外国仲裁裁决承认与执行的理由及案例研析。这部分主要以《纽约公约》第五条为指引，将拒绝承认与执行仲裁裁决的理由分为当事人提出的理由与法院提出的理由两部分。并结合我国的司法实践逐条地对各类拒绝理由进行分析，旨在阐明我国法院对此拒绝理由的司法态度。
关于当事人不适格或仲裁协议无效的理由。通过司法实践可以看出，我国法院采取与公约立法意图相一致的属人法原则来认定仲裁当事人的行为能力；龙利得案的出现很大程度上缓解了公约下我国认定仲裁协议无效的情形（我国法院以仲裁协议无效为由拒绝承认与执行外国仲裁裁决的情形主要是外国仲裁机构在我国仲裁的情形）。此外，我国在有利于仲裁原则的指引下，通过仲裁法相关解释对瑕疵仲裁协议的各类情形也提供了丰富的立法与司法补充，所以通常并不轻易否定瑕疵仲裁协议的有效性。
关于未适当通知仲裁员的组成或仲裁程序的理由。通过司法实践可以看出，我国法院只有在所涉裁决严重违反“正当程序”要求时才会认定违反公约第五条第一款的要求。
关于仲裁员超越权限的理由。通过司法实践可以看出，我国法院对于超裁的认定也以实质性地超越权限为标准，而对于有效裁决与超裁部分裁决的可执行性上也以能否有效区分为标准，符合了公约的要求。
关于仲裁庭的组成不符合仲裁协议或仲裁地法律的理由。通过我国的司法实践可以看出，我国认为仲裁庭没有依据当事人选定的仲裁规则通知当事人选定仲裁员构成对该条的违反。此外，我国法院也将缺员仲裁庭的情形作为该条的另一个解读。
关于仲裁裁决不具约束力或已被撤销的理由。由于我国并没有关于该理由的司法实践，所以不能分析我国对此的司法态度。但纵观国际社会，除了少部分国家认可已撤销裁决的可执行性外，大部分国家出于国际规则或国际礼让并不会承认与执行一国已撤销的裁决。
关于可仲裁性的理由。通过司法实践可以看出，各国对于可仲裁性的规定差异性很大，一国不可仲裁的事项可能在其他国家可以仲裁。另外，我国禁止对于有关人身性的纠纷进行仲裁，仅允许对财产权益类纠纷进行仲裁。
关于公共政策的理由。通过司法实践可以看出，我国并没有公共政策的明确定义，而是多以否定式的解读来确定其边界，如违反我国强制性规定不构成对公共政策的违反、违反我国部门规章亦不构成、仲裁结果的不公正亦不构成、外国企业对我国的低价倾销亦不构成、以及仲裁庭对我国法律的否定与误解亦不构成对公共政策的违反。永宁公司案是我国内部报告制度实施以来的第一例认定为违反我国公共政策的案例，我国法院认为仲裁庭对于我国已裁决案件的审理构成了对我国司法主权的侵犯，因而违反了我国的公共政策。
第四章为对外国仲裁裁决在中国承认与执行的建议。该部分旨在针对上述章节所述内容中揭露的问题进行进一步剖析，并提出合理性建议，以期对我国仲裁制度发展有所帮助。
关于内部报告制度。首先应当在我国仲裁法修改之际，以立法的形式正式确立内部报告制度；其次，应当在内部报告制度当中赋予当事人必要的诉讼参与权，比如获得在地方高级人民法院或最高人民法院答辩的权利或补充必要证据的权利；再次，内部报告制度应当明确其各个阶级的时限要求，提高仲裁当事人对法律的预见性及确定性。
关于外国仲裁机构在我国仲裁的问题。从根本上考虑，在仲裁法修改之际应当引入“仲裁地”概念，彻底废除我国落后的“仲裁机构”的标准。接轨公约的“地域标准”,不再将选定仲裁机构作为判断仲裁有效性的标准。退一步讲，立法成本相对较小的方法是明确确立我国“非内国裁决”的标准。具体而言，最高人民法院可以通过三种方式确立“非内国裁决”的标准，即司法解释、批复或指导性案例。
关于公共政策的问题。首先应该明确公共政策的定义，避免司法实践的混乱。
其次，明确如永宁公司案所涉的管辖权的冲突情形不宜定性为公共政策的违反。再次，明确审慎适用公共政策原则，在存在其他拒绝理由的情况下，绝不援引公共政策，以免过多地丰富公共政策的内涵。
[关键词] 国际商事仲裁；《纽约公约》；承认与执行外国仲裁裁决
Abstract
The General Assembly adopted on 6 December 2007 resolution 62/65 in which itrecognized the value of arbitration as a method of settling disputes in internationalcommercial relations in a manner that contributes to harmonious commercial relations,stimulates international trade and development and promotes the rule of law at bothinternational and national levels. Especially, in cross-border transactions, arbitration isfrequently used as a neutral mechanism to defeat the potential local protectionism fromthe national courts. However, a favorable award in hand is not the end of the story; asuccessful recognition and enforcement amounts to the ultimate and vital interests ofthe party, which depends on the judicial practice and attitude of the contracting countrywhere the recognition and enforcement of the award is sought under the New YorkConvention.
With the astounding boost of Chinese economy, Chinese enterprises areparticipating more actively than ever in the global trade. Their counterparts, the foreignenterprises are now paying more attention to China's interpretation towards the NewYork Convention. Given the special legal regime in China, this thesis is aiming toexplore the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in China in thecontext of the New York Convention through comparative study and empirical study.
Apart from the conclusion part, this paper is divided into 4 Chapters:
Chapter I provides an overview of the recognition and enforcement of the foreignarbitral award, in which the scope of the application of the New York Convention isillustrated, along with the introduction of the commercial reservation and reciprocityreservation. Besides, the procedural requirement in the Convention is discussed, andwith certain definitions which need to be distinguished, such as recognition andenforcement.
Chapter II sets forth the Chinese practice of the recognition and enforcement offoreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention, in which some briefbackground information, the procedural requirements and the Report Mechanism willbe stressed. The four procedural requirements found in the process of seekingrecognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are competent court, qualified filingdocuments, time limit and grounds for refusal; the Report System is an interim reportmechanism within the court system that China adopted as early as the accession of theNew York Convention, aiming to restrain local protectionism and offer a moreuniformed implementation among local courts, so as to better implement the New YorkConvention.
Furthermore, this part illustrates a very unique interpretation of the“non-domestic” award in China. Due to a strict definition of “arbitration institution” inChina's legislation, the nature of an arbitral award given by a foreign arbitrationinstitution in the territory of China differs in China and that under the New YorkConvention. The incompatibility hence breeds the so-called “non-domestic” award. Tobetter illustrate this issue, the author uses the International Chamber of Commerce（“ICC”） as a representative of foreign arbitration and analyzes the legitimacy, categoryand judicial practice of such awards.
First of all, the analysis on legitimacy focuses on the collision of standard clausesin major foreign arbitration institutions, where a vast majority of the standard clausesonly require a selection of arbitral rules instead of institution. The Züblin Case causedICC to modify its standard clause, suggesting the arbitration parties explicitly writingdown arbitration institution in arbitration clauses. Still, such expressed arbitrationinstitution may fall out of the scope of Arbitration Committee under the Chineselegislation, which will subsequently lead to a questionable validity of such arbitrationclauses.
Secondly, the author analyzes which category an arbitration made by ICC inChina will fall into. Take the Duferco Case as an example: the reasoning ofnon-domestic awards followed an exclusive pattern, excluding such awards fromdomestic award under the Chinese legislation and territorial-criteria arbitral awardunder the New York Convention; however, such reasoning cannot be considered as ameticulous and optimal option, and it is awarded only by a district court, which is notequal to official interpretation in China.
Moreover, the author discusses the current situation and the development of“non-domestic” award in China. In the 2013 Longlide Case, the court regarded aselection of foreign arbitration institution the same as the selection of ArbitrationCommission under Chinese legislation. For the first time, the court recognizes thelegitimacy of arbitral awards made by a foreign arbitration institution in China.
However, the Supreme Court has not explicitly defined the category that such awardfalls into. Hence a further clarification is expected in the implementation phase.
Chapter III discusses the case study on the grounds for refusal to the recognitionand enforcement of foreign arbitral award in China. Following the guidance of ArticleV of the New York Convention, the grounds for refusal in this Chapter will be dividedinto the grounds raised by parties and grounds raised by the court, and will be analyzedby means of Chinese judicial practice, aiming to clarify the judicial interpretation ofChina.
For refusal on grounds of unsuitable party/parties or invalid arbitration agreement,we can see from judicial practice that the national courts take the same criteria as thatunder the New York Convention, the lex personalis, to identify the capacity of theparties. The Longlide Case made it possible for court to recognized arbitral awardsmade by foreign arbitration institution in Chinese territory. Besides, guided by thepro-arbitration principle, China is trying to validate more pathological arbitrationagreements through interpretation for arbitration law and judicial practice, and tendsnot to regard pathological arbitration agreements as invalid.
For refusal on grounds of not giving proper notice of the appointment ofarbitrators or arbitral proceedings, we can see from judicial practice that the nationalcourts will only deem it contrary to Article V（1） of the New York Convention when thearbitral award related seriously violates the requirement of “due process”.
For refusal on grounds of ultra vires, we can see from judicial practice that anaward is deemed to go beyond its scope of submission only when there is a substantiveoverstep, and the national courts separate the enforceability of valid parts of an awardfrom parts that exceed the arbitrator's power, which is in accordance with therequirements of the New York Convention.
For refusal on grounds where the composition of arbitral tribunal is not inaccordance with the arbitration agreement or the law of the country where thearbitration takes place, the court considers the failing of noticing the appointed1rbitrator based on the arbitration rules agreed upon between the parties and truncatedtribunal as violations of such ground.
For refusal on grounds of non-binding and annulled arbitration awards, the authoris unable to conclude China's interpretation on such issues due to a lack of judicialpractice. However, most countries in the world refuse to recognize or enforce anannulled arbitration award due to international rules or international comities.
For refusal on grounds of arbitrability, we can see from judicial practice thatnations around the world define a varied scope for matters that are arbitrable. Somesubject matters that are arbitrable in nature may fall out the scope of arbitration inanother country. In China, only disputes on property issues can be submitted to thearbitration tribunal, while disputes concerning personal rights are not arbitrable subjectmatters.
For refusal on grounds of violating public policy, China has not given a cleardefinition on public policy; the scope is defined based on an exclusive method,excluding violations of mandatory provisions and departmental rules, unfair arbitralawards, dumping from foreign enterprises, and the tribunal's denial andmisinterpretation of Chinese legislation. The Hemofarm DD Case is the very first casethat was refused on the grounds of violating public policy since the adoption of theReport System. The tribunal's awarding on a case that has been decided by the Chinesecourt infringes the judicial sovereignty of China.
Chapter IV provides some specific and reasonable suggestions on the problemsthat have been revealed in the above-mentioned Chapters, aiming to makecontributions to the Chinese arbitration system.
The Report System: China should take the advantage of the modification ofArbitration Law and solidify the Report System in legislation. Furthermore, the ReportSystem should grant the parties the necessary rights to participate in the case, includingthe rights to answer or provide necessary supplementary evidence in front of the HighCourt or the Supreme Court. Also, the Report System shall make clear the time limit ofeach phase, and enhance the parties' predictability and certainty of law.
Arbitration conducted by foreign arbitration institutions within the Chineseterritory: the author suggests the legislator taking up the “territorial criteria” todetermine the validity of arbitration agreements, and replacing the “arbitrationinstitution” in the current Arbitration Law with “seat of arbitration”. To minimize thecost of modification, a preferable way is to clearly define the standard of“non-domestic awards” through judicial interpretation, judicial reply or instructivecases.
Public policy: it is vital to define the scope of public policy to avoid chaos causedby different judicial practice. Apart from that, it is also beneficial to explicitly expressthat a collision of jurisdiction such as that in the Hemofarm DD Case should not bedefined as violation of public policy. Furthermore, the court should adopt a prudentapproach towards applying public policy, meaning where there's other alternatives torefuse an arbitral award, the ground of violating public policy should not be used, so asto limit the scope of public policy.
[Key Words] International Commercial Arbitration; New YorkConvention; Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award
目 录
导 论
一、研究的目的和意义
二、文献综述
三、研究方法
四、论文的创新和不足
第一章 外国仲裁裁决的承认与执行
第一节 《纽约公约》的适用范围
一、外国仲裁裁决的界定
二、互惠保留与商事保留制度
第二节 《纽约公约》下的承认与执行制度
一、《纽约公约》下“承认”与“执行”的区别
二、《纽约公约》下承认与执行的程序要求
第二章 《纽约公约》下外国仲裁裁决的承认与执行的中国实践
第一节 《纽约公约》在中国的适
一、中国加入《纽约公约》的基本情况
二、外国仲裁裁决在中国承认与执行的程序要求
三、对外国仲裁裁决的内部报告制度
第二节 中国国情的“非内国裁决”
一、国际商会国际仲裁院在中国大陆仲裁的合法性分析
二、国际商会国际仲裁院在中国大陆作出裁决的性质分析
三、国际商会国际仲裁院在中国大陆仲裁的发展与困境
第三章 拒绝承认与执行外国仲裁裁决理由及案例研析
第一节 由当事人提出的理由
一、当事人不适格或仲裁协议无效
二、未有效通知仲裁员的组成或仲裁程序
三、仲裁员超越权限
四、仲裁庭的组成不符合仲裁协议或仲裁地法律
五、仲裁裁决不具约束力或已被撤销
第二节 由法院提出的理由
一、可仲裁性
二、公共政策
第四章 对外国仲裁裁决在中国承认与执行的建议
第一节 完善内部报告制度
一、立法确立内部报告制度
二、赋予当事人参与权利并明确时限规定
第二节 解决外国仲裁机构在中国仲裁的问题
一、引入“仲裁地”概念
二、确立“非内国裁决”标准
第三节 限缩公共政策的适用范围
一、确立公共政策的定义，管辖冲突不宜定性公共政策
二、审慎考虑公共政策适用，存在其他理由不宜援引公共政策
结语
参考文献
后记
