论文部分内容阅读
本综述在检索了2012年5月至2013年6月间发表于法学类CSSCI检索源期刊、北大核心期刊的商法学论文、商法学著作的基础上整理而成。一、商事仲裁的基本理论有学者提出,我国不少立法者长期即认为仲裁地法应当作为国家干预仲裁意志的集中体现,仲裁程序犹如诉讼程序、仲裁员犹如法官,管理仲裁程序的法律无论如何都应强制适用仲裁程序,因此无论仲裁程序法的整体,还是具体的仲裁程序规范,都没有当事人选择适用的余地。这一观点完全误解了仲裁的契约属性,亟待在立法中进行彻底的变革。①有学者提出,为了配合我国当今在国际经济贸易舞台上所处的重要地位,我国仲裁法的修改目标之一应该是使我国至少成为对外商有一定吸引力的一个新兴的国际商事仲裁中心,从而使仲裁程序更加简捷,便利当事人。②有学者提出,在我国特殊的“一国两制”体制下,大陆和港澳的司法机关和立法机关相互独立,
This review is based on a survey of commercial law papers published in the core journals of law CSSCI and core journals published by Peking University from May 2012 to June 2013 and on the basis of commercial law writings. First, the basic theory of commercial arbitration Some scholars have proposed that many legislators in our country think that the law of arbitration should be a concentrated expression of the will of the state to intervene for a long time. Arbitration procedures are like litigation procedures. Arbitrators act like judges and the law governing arbitration procedures no matter what The arbitration procedure should be compulsory. Therefore, no matter the arbitration procedure law as a whole or the specific arbitration procedure norms, there is no room for the parties to choose to apply. This view completely misunderstood the contractual nature of arbitration, and it is urgent to make radical changes in the legislation. ① Some scholars have suggested that one of the objectives of the revision of China’s Arbitration Law should be to make our country an at least an emerging center for international commercial arbitration with a certain attraction to foreign investors in order to meet the important role that China now plays in the international economic and trade arena. Thus making the arbitration process more simple and convenient for the parties. ② Some scholars have suggested that under the special “one country, two systems” system in China, the judiciary and the legislature in the mainland, Hong Kong and Maucao are independent of each other,