论文部分内容阅读
最高人民法院在“恒基公司案”中依据相关司法解释,认定在香港法人之间订立的临时仲裁协议无效。实在法和法院裁判都片面地理解了仲裁条款的独立性原理,忽视了当事人约定的合同准据法对于涉外仲裁条款法律适用的意义,同时又不恰当地将法院地法作为认定涉外仲裁协议效力的最后系属,结果是将我国过于严苛的仲裁形式要求强加给域外已经或可能进行的仲裁。“恒基公司案”对实在法和司法裁判提出了双重拷问,未来立法和司法应予深思。
According to the relevant judicial interpretations, the Supreme People’s Court found that the interim arbitration agreement concluded between Hong Kong and PRC companies was invalid. Both the substantive law and court judgments have unilaterally understood the principle of independence of arbitration clauses and ignored the significance of the law of contract law agreed upon by the parties on the law applicable to foreign arbitration clauses while not properly using the law of the courts as a valid arbitration agreement for foreign parties The result is the imposition of the overly harsh form of arbitration in our country on arbitrations that have already been or may have taken place outside the domain. “Henderson case ” on the real law and judicial referee made a double torture, future legislation and judicature should be pondered.