国际投资仲裁中特免权制度的研究

发布时间：2018-02-26 15:05

本文关键词： 国际投资仲裁国际投资仲裁证据规则证据开示特免权　出处：《中国社会科学院研究生院》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：国际投资仲裁已经日益发展成为国际投资争端领域的一种高效的纠纷解决方式,关于证据问题的研究也成为了国际投资仲裁实践中的焦点问题。在国际社会众多的证据规则之中,《ICSID仲裁规则》、《UNCITRAL仲裁规则》、《IBA证据规则》这三个证据规则最具有代表意义,对于我们研究国际投资仲裁证据开示制度的例外——特免权制度也有着举足轻重的作用。证据法上的特免权(privilege)指的是立法者基于对某种特殊信赖关系的保护,从而赋予诉讼或仲裁中相关人员拒绝向法庭或仲裁庭提供相关证据资料,包括阻止他人披露上述证据的权利。可以说,特免权制度是为了保护特定的社会关系或社会利益而生。目前在实践中,最为普遍常见的特免权种类是“律师—当事人特免权”和“公共利益特免权”,特免权制度的研究也主要围绕着这两种类型展开。特免权制度主要具有三方面重要的价值追求,具体包括“体现仲裁的效率价值”、“保护争端双方合法权益”、“适度制衡透明度规则”。也正是因为这三方面的价值追求,让该项制度得到了国际社会的广泛认同,取得了进一步发展的空间。当然,该项制度在各国的实践中仍存在不少的问题值得关注,主要包括“法律冲突的问题”、“信息认定审查的问题”以及“权利滥用的问题”。关于法律冲突问题的解决,可以寻求被广泛接受的规则,虽然我们短时间内无法建立一套完备统一的特免权规则体系,但可以通过对国内法与国际法的比对考察,来寻求各国能普遍接受的原则或规则;关于信息认定审查问题的解决,可以设立第三方审查机制;而滥用问题的解决,可以对权力滥用的行为进行不利推定,并要求导致该不利后果的当事人承担因其滥用权利而造成的不必要的费用负担,这样不仅能够制止恶意行为,又能在一定程度上达到利益的平衡。从我国仲裁领域目前的发展来看,虽然深圳国际仲裁院出台了国际投资仲裁新规,体现出了我国在国际投资仲裁领域的进步。但整体而言,我国仲裁实践仍尚不发达,制度发展也还不够成熟,我国专门的仲裁法和各仲裁机构的仲裁规则都缺少具体的证据规则,自然也没有特免权这项前沿制度的任何规定。这样的现状,与“一带一路”以及中国企业“走出去”战略布局并不相称,也不利于国际投资仲裁的日后发展以及与国际接轨。笔者在结合国际投资仲裁在我国的发展趋势的基础上,大胆地提出“明确证据开示环节”、“确立证据特免权”、“对特免权进行必要约束”等实践构想,为国际投资仲裁未来在中国的发展做好研究准备。
[Abstract]:International investment arbitration has become an efficient way to settle disputes in the field of international investment disputes. The research on evidence has also become the focal point in the practice of international investment arbitration. Among the numerous rules of evidence in the international community, the ICSID Arbitration rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration rules and the IBA evidence rules are the most representative of the three evidentiary rules. It is also very important for us to study the exception of evidence discovery system in international investment arbitration, the privilege of special exemption, which refers to the legislator based on the protection of a special trust relationship. Thus giving the person involved in the proceedings or arbitration the right to refuse to provide relevant evidentiary information to the court or arbitral tribunal, including the right to prevent the disclosure of such evidence... The privilege system is designed to protect specific social relations or social interests. The most common types of privilege are lawyer-litigant privilege and public interest privilege, and the research of special exemption system mainly revolves around these two types. The special exemption right system has three important value pursuits. It includes "embodying the efficiency value of arbitration", "protecting the legitimate rights and interests of both parties to the dispute" and "the rules of appropriate checks and balances on transparency". It is precisely because of the pursuit of value in these three aspects that the system has been widely recognized by the international community. There is room for further development. Of course, there are still many problems in the practice of this system that deserve attention. Including mainly "issues of conflict of laws", "questions of information identification review" and "issues of abuse of rights"... with regard to the resolution of conflicts of laws, widely accepted rules can be sought, Although we cannot establish a complete and unified system of special immunity rules in a short period of time, we can seek principles or rules that are generally acceptable to all countries through a comparative study of domestic law and international law; and on the resolution of the question of the examination of information identification. A third party review mechanism may be established; and the resolution of the abuse of power may make an adverse presumption of the abuse of power and require the party causing the adverse consequences to bear the unnecessary cost of the abuse, This can not only stop malicious acts, but also achieve a balance of interests to a certain extent. Judging from the current development in the field of arbitration in China, although the Shenzhen International Arbitration Institute has issued new rules on international investment arbitration, It reflects the progress of our country in the field of international investment arbitration. But on the whole, the practice of arbitration in our country is still undeveloped, and the system development is not mature enough. China's special arbitration law and the arbitration rules of various arbitration institutions lack specific rules of evidence, and naturally there is no provision in the frontier system of special exemption. It is not commensurate with "Belt and Road" and the strategic layout of "going out" of Chinese enterprises, nor is it conducive to the future development of international investment arbitration and international integration. The author combines the development trend of international investment arbitration in our country. In order to prepare for the future development of international investment arbitration in China, the authors boldly put forward some practical ideas, such as "making clear the link of discovery of evidence", "establishing the power of special exemption of evidence" and "carrying out necessary restriction on the right of special exemption", etc. in order to prepare for the future development of international investment arbitration in China.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D996.4

【相似文献】