论文部分内容阅读
仲裁裁决被撤销抑或是被不予执行,作为一种法定的司法审查制度,是人民法院对于商事仲裁活动进行司法监督的核心环节,也是衡量仲裁活动效率价值以及司法公正价值是否和谐的标尺。超裁,是指仲裁庭超越权限做出裁决。但是,法律对超裁标准的界定却是模糊的,法院与仲裁庭对判别超裁的标准又可能存在不同,随着仲裁制度的不断推广,超裁裁决的界定在理解层面和操作层面上的缺陷已日益显现,从而对人民法院在仲裁裁决撤销或不予执行审查中应如何正确界定超裁的标准问题产生诸多争论。但是,对于超裁这一问题的研究还是处于初步阶段。本文拟从实践、理论及立法的角度对我国仲裁超裁裁决的司法审查制度进行探讨,并结合仲裁国际公约以及他国成熟仲裁立法,构建仲裁实践中对超裁的界定标准,并对我国仲裁超裁裁决的司法监督提出若干建议。
Arbitral awards are either revoked or not enforced. As a statutory system of judicial review, it is the core of the people’s court for judicial supervision of commercial arbitration activities. It is also a measure of the efficiency of arbitration activities and the harmony of judicial fair value. Overdraft refers to the arbitral tribunal beyond the power to make a decision. However, the law defines the standard of overdraft but it is ambiguous. There may be differences between the courts and the arbitration tribunal on the criteria for judging overdraft. As the system of arbitration continues to be extended, the definition of overruled award is at the level of understanding and operation Defects have become increasingly apparent, and many controversies have arisen about how the people’s court should correctly define the standard of overruling in the arbitration award’s withdrawal or non-enforcement review. However, research on the issue of over-courting is still in its infancy. This article intends to discuss the judicial review system of arbitration overruns in our country from the perspectives of practice, theory and legislation. In combination with the international conventions on arbitration and other countries’ mature arbitration legislation, this article attempts to establish the definition of overdraft in the practice of arbitration, Judicial supervision of the award made a number of recommendations.