仲裁责任制度经历了不断延伸与变更的历史过程,即仲裁契约责任——法律责任——豁免责任——有限民事责任——刑事责任的流转形态。从仲裁责任的演进和不断修正中可以得出两点结论:其一,仲裁行为以契约性基础特质作为其存在基础;其二,仲裁行为倡导“公正优先,兼顾效益”的价值选择,为刑事责任的确立预留了空间。因此,结合以上理论基点透视刑法修正案中的枉法仲裁罪,既要承认其刑事责任确立的客观性,又要探究契合仲裁行为自身契约性的运行机制。然而,由于枉法仲裁罪的追诉方式在理论与实践上存在难以克服的诸多弊端,设立非纯正的亲告罪应是反思之后的理性选择。 The system of arbitration responsibility has undergone the historical process of continuous extension and change, that is, the contractual responsibility of arbitration - legal liability - exemption liability - limited civil liability - the flow of criminal responsibility. From the evolution and constant revision of the responsibility of arbitration, two conclusions can be drawn: First, the arbitration is based on the contractual basic qualities; second, the arbitration practices advocate the value choice of “fair prioritization and efficiency” Set aside space for the establishment of criminal responsibility. Therefore, combined with the above theoretical basis, we can not only recognize the objectivity of establishing criminal responsibility, but also explore the operating mechanism that suits the contractual nature of arbitration. However, since there are many unscrupulous drawbacks in theory and in practice in the way of prosecution of perverse arbitration, establishing non-pure pro-trial crime should be a rational choice after reflection.