论文部分内容阅读
自裁管辖权在如今的国际商事仲裁中已经被广泛接受,该原则在理论上包含了双重效力,其中的消极效力决定了仲裁庭在决定争议案件管辖权上具有优先权。然而消极效力并不能保证仲裁庭的管辖权决定不受司法审查,达纳诉巴基斯坦案显示法院在司法程序中可能采取全面审查的方法,从而削弱自裁管辖权的效果。2014年美国BG诉阿根廷案则进一步揭示了和自裁管辖权有关的几个问题,包括法院和仲裁员的权限划分、仲裁员决定管辖权的依据、司法审查的界限以及国际投资仲裁和商事仲裁的区别,对于其他国家有一定借鉴意义。对我国建立起有自身特色的自裁管辖权制度也有一定的启示与帮助。
Jurisdiction has been widely accepted in today’s international commercial arbitration, which contains theoretically double efficacy, of which the negative effect determines the arbitral tribunal’s priority in determining the jurisdiction of disputes. However, the negative effect does not guarantee that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal will not be subject to judicial review. The Dana v. Pakistan case shows that the court may conduct a comprehensive review in the judicial process, thereby weakening the effectiveness of self-determination jurisdiction. The 2014 United States BG v. Argentina case further reveals several issues related to the autocratic power jurisdiction, including the division of powers between courts and arbitrators, the basis for arbitrators to decide jurisdiction, the boundaries of judicial review, and international investment arbitration and commercial arbitration Difference, for other countries have some reference. There is also some enlightenment and help to establish our own system of self-regulatory jurisdiction.