论文部分内容阅读
国际商事仲裁裁决的既判力问题实践性相当强,由于适用既判力原则的具体制度不同,各国无法在处理该问题上达到统一。普通法系在长年的司法实践中发展出了诸如诉因禁反言、争点禁反言、禁止滥用程序原则等一系列独特的既判力制度,这些制度同大陆法系的既判力制度差异甚大,其背后所融入的法律思维和所追求的法律价值典型地体现了普通法系的精神。本文以Associated Electric v.European Re案为切入点,阐明普通法系的既判力制度,试图探寻普通法系解决国际商事仲裁裁决既判力问题的路径,并简要总结普通法系处理既判力问题的经验的核心之所在,以期对我国法院的实践有所裨益。
The issue of res judicata in international commercial arbitral awards is quite practical. Due to the different specific systems applying the principle of res judicata, countries can not reach a unity in handling the issue. The common law system has developed a series of unique res judicata systems such as the Prohibition of Antinomy, the Prohibition of Arguments, the Prohibition of Abuse of Procedures and so on, which have been different from the civil law system for res judicata. Behind the incorporation of legal thinking and the pursuit of legal value typically reflects the spirit of common law. This article takes Associated Electric v. European Re as the starting point to clarify the common law system of res judicata, trying to explore common law jurisdictions to resolve the issue of res judicata in international commercial arbitration, and briefly summarizes the common law system to deal with the core of the experience of res judicata Where, in order to benefit our practice of the courts.