国际仲裁的法理基础
发布时间：2018-11-22 14:54
【摘要】：国际仲裁，，作为一种私人的纠纷解决方式，学界一般认为其基础是当事人的意思自治，国家能够干预的范围甚小。但是私人的纠纷解决方式何以能创立具有司法性质的纠纷解决程序，甚至在国家法律秩序之外创设规则？或者说仲裁员的权力以及仲裁程序和仲裁裁决的法律性质来自何处？这仍然是一个有争议的问题，且到目前为止我们对国际仲裁和法学理论的交叉研究仍然非常有限。 本文以盖拉德教授关于国际仲裁基础的三种“存在形式”的归纳为出发点（第一部分），从国家与个人之间的关系（第二部分）、国家与国家之间的关系（第三部分）两个层面对国际仲裁的存在基础进行了分析。在国家与个人之间的关系中，自法理基础看，个人权利具有无可争议的优先地位，国家产生和存在的目的即为保护个人权利。但是这却往往无法解释现实中个人权利为国家主权让步的情形。比如，何以有非可仲裁事项？对选择仲裁的自由进行限制的理由是什么？而一旦到了国家与国家之间（单一国家与国际社会之间）的关系的层面，个人则几乎没有发声的空间。国家是国际法的主体，却在宏观的层面上决定了个人的权利。因此本文认为传统的国际仲裁的基础为个人自治的理论并不能完全解释国际仲裁中的一些现象。 在传统的个人权利与国家权力的对立性关系中，本文用集体的或者说集合的个人权利的观念代替了个体的个人权利的观念，即在国家产生的过程中，个人权利是以个人权利的集合的形式出现的。而如果在后续的讨论中，认为个体的个人权利能取得集合的个人权利的地位，在与国家权力的对立性关系中也取得一样的绝对的优势地位，则是错误的。 基于这样一种区分，本文将个体的个人权利与国家权力的关系表述为“个人意志优先，兼顾国家主权”，即在国际仲裁制度中个人意志是最基础的，但在权利让渡之后，实际的权力是由国家行使来行使的；在国际仲裁活动中，某一国家具有决定本国仲裁制度的权力，可以决定本国公民仲裁权利的范围；但是国家主权对个人权利作出限制的地方，必须有正当的理由。
[Abstract]:International arbitration, as a private dispute settlement method, is generally considered to be based on the autonomy of the parties, and the scope of state intervention is very small. But how can private dispute resolution methods create dispute resolution procedures of a judicial nature, or even create rules outside the national legal order? Or where do the arbitrators' powers and the legal nature of the arbitral proceedings and arbitral awards come from? This is still a controversial issue, and so far our cross-study of international arbitration and legal theory is still very limited. This paper starts from Professor Gillard's induction of three "forms of existence" on the basis of international arbitration (part I), from the relationship between the state and the individual (the second part). The relationship between state and state (part three) analyzes the existence basis of international arbitration. In the relationship between the state and the individual, from the legal basis, the individual rights have an indisputable priority, and the purpose of the state is to protect the individual rights. But this often can not explain the reality of individual rights for national sovereignty concessions. For example, why is there a non-arbitrable matter? What are the reasons for restricting the freedom to choose arbitration? When it comes to state-to-state relations (between a single state and the international community), individuals have little room to speak. The state is the subject of international law, but it determines the individual's rights at the macro level. Therefore, this paper argues that the traditional theory of individual autonomy can not fully explain some phenomena in international arbitration. In the traditional antithesis between individual right and state power, this paper uses the concept of collective or collective individual right to replace the idea of individual right, that is, in the process of the emergence of the state, Individual rights appear in the form of a collection of individual rights. However, it is wrong to think that the individual rights can obtain the status of collective individual rights and the same absolute superiority status in the antagonistic relationship with the state power in the subsequent discussion. Based on such a distinction, the relationship between individual rights and state power is expressed in this paper as "individual will takes precedence over national sovereignty", that is, in the international arbitration system, individual will is the most basic, but after the transfer of rights, The actual power is exercised by the state; In international arbitration activities, a country has the power to determine its own arbitration system and may determine the scope of its citizens' arbitration rights; however, where national sovereignty limits individual rights, there must be justification.
【学位授予单位】：中共中央党校
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D994;D997.4
本文编号：2349688
[Abstract]:International arbitration, as a private dispute settlement method, is generally considered to be based on the autonomy of the parties, and the scope of state intervention is very small. But how can private dispute resolution methods create dispute resolution procedures of a judicial nature, or even create rules outside the national legal order? Or where do the arbitrators' powers and the legal nature of the arbitral proceedings and arbitral awards come from? This is still a controversial issue, and so far our cross-study of international arbitration and legal theory is still very limited. This paper starts from Professor Gillard's induction of three "forms of existence" on the basis of international arbitration (part I), from the relationship between the state and the individual (the second part). The relationship between state and state (part three) analyzes the existence basis of international arbitration. In the relationship between the state and the individual, from the legal basis, the individual rights have an indisputable priority, and the purpose of the state is to protect the individual rights. But this often can not explain the reality of individual rights for national sovereignty concessions. For example, why is there a non-arbitrable matter? What are the reasons for restricting the freedom to choose arbitration? When it comes to state-to-state relations (between a single state and the international community), individuals have little room to speak. The state is the subject of international law, but it determines the individual's rights at the macro level. Therefore, this paper argues that the traditional theory of individual autonomy can not fully explain some phenomena in international arbitration. In the traditional antithesis between individual right and state power, this paper uses the concept of collective or collective individual right to replace the idea of individual right, that is, in the process of the emergence of the state, Individual rights appear in the form of a collection of individual rights. However, it is wrong to think that the individual rights can obtain the status of collective individual rights and the same absolute superiority status in the antagonistic relationship with the state power in the subsequent discussion. Based on such a distinction, the relationship between individual rights and state power is expressed in this paper as "individual will takes precedence over national sovereignty", that is, in the international arbitration system, individual will is the most basic, but after the transfer of rights, The actual power is exercised by the state; In international arbitration activities, a country has the power to determine its own arbitration system and may determine the scope of its citizens' arbitration rights; however, where national sovereignty limits individual rights, there must be justification.
【学位授予单位】：中共中央党校
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D994;D997.4
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前3条
1 湛茜;;论ICSID仲裁中当事方的“同意”[J];北京仲裁;2010年01期
2 许军珂;;论国际商事仲裁中的当事人意思自治原则[J];广播电视大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2008年01期
3 乔生;论当事人意思自治原则在国际商事仲裁领域的地位与发展趋势[J];山东社会科学;2003年05期
本文编号：2349688
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2349688.html
