论文部分内容阅读
一般认为仲裁裁决具有和法院判决同等的效力,在解决社会纠纷和确定权利义务关系中发挥了相当于司法裁判的作用。但仲裁所具有的民间性特征以及其特殊的审理过程,使其裁决之效力不可能完全等同于法院判决。对仲裁裁决主文之既判力,学界和实务界多持肯定意见。但是对于仲裁裁决理由,则不能简单肯定其完全的拘束力。仲裁裁决争点效与仲裁制度的一些基本特征存在不兼容之处,甚至有侵害仲裁公正之可能。因此,不应承认在仲裁裁决理由之上,有类似既判力的争点效力。
Arbitral awards are generally considered to have the same effect as court rulings and play a role equivalent to judicial adjudication in settling social disputes and defining their rights and obligations. However, the non-governmental nature of arbitration and its special hearing process make the validity of its award unequal to the court judgment. The res judicata of the main text of the arbitration award, the academic circles and the substantive circles hold more than one affirmative opinion. However, the reasons for the arbitration award can not be simply affirmed its full binding force. There are incompatibilities between some of the basic characteristics of arbitration awards and the arbitration system and may even infringe the fairness of arbitration. Therefore, it should not be admitted that there is a similar force of res judicata on the grounds for the arbitration award.