论文部分内容阅读
根据组织形式的不同,仲裁制度可分为临时仲裁与机构仲裁制度。从我国仲裁法第16条及第18条可以看出,我国不承认临时仲裁制度;但是我国在加入《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(以下称《纽约公约》)时,对其中的临时仲裁制度并未提出保留,这一矛盾态度一定程度上阻碍了我国仲裁事业的发展。本文在对机构仲裁与临时仲裁进行比较的基础上,结合具体国情,力图对我国临时仲裁制度的构建提出有益意见和设想。
According to the different forms of organization, the arbitration system can be divided into ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration. As can be seen from Articles 16 and 18 of China’s Arbitration Law, our country does not recognize the interim arbitration system. However, when China acceded to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred to as “the New York Convention”), China interim arbitration System did not propose reservations, this ambivalent attitude to some extent hindered the development of China’s arbitration. Based on the comparison of institutional arbitration and interim arbitration, this article attempts to provide useful suggestions and assumptions on the construction of China’s interim arbitration system in the light of specific national conditions.