海峡两岸可仲裁事项比较研究  

A Comparative Study on Arbitral Issues Across the Taiwan Strait

作　　者：赵生祥[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学,重庆400031

出　　处：《现代法学》2007年第2期149-156,共8页Modern Law Science

摘　　要：对于可以仲裁的争议事项,祖国大陆和我国台湾的仲裁立法有着不同的规定。大陆1994年《仲裁法》将可仲裁事项限定为平等主体的公民、法人和其他组织之间发生的合同纠纷和其他财产权益纠纷,并明确规定了婚姻、收养、监护、扶养、继承纠纷和依法应当由行政机关处理的行政争议不能仲裁;我国台湾“仲裁法”则将可仲裁事项界定为依法可以和解的争议。海峡两岸可仲裁事项的差异,表明了两岸对争议事项可仲裁性的不同认识,也表明了两岸对当事人自主选择民事纠纷解决方式的不同态度。相比之下,我国台湾“仲裁法”对可仲裁事项的界定,更准确地反映了适宜仲裁的争议事项的范围,更充分地尊重了当事人的仲裁自治权,因而值得祖国大陆参考和借鉴。Laws in the mainland and the Taiwan district of the PRC differ in arbitral issues. The 1994 Arbitration Act of the mainland provides that disputes over contracts or property interests between citizens, legal persons and other organizations that enjoy equal rights may be settled by arbitration. It further specifies that disputes over marriage, adoption, guardianship, maintenance and inheritance, and those that fall within the jurisdiction of administra- tive organs, are not arbitral matters. The arbitration law in Taiwan, however, holds that disputes that can be solved through settlement are arbitral matters. The difference between the two sides across the Taiwan Strait indicates that they vary in what issue is arbitral. It also reveals that the two sides have different attitudes towards what mode the parties can choose to settle their civil disputes. In comparison, Taiwan＇ s provision seems more accurate in delineating arbitral issues and the autonomy of the parties seems to be better respected, which is worth referring to.

关 键 词：海峡两岸 仲裁立法 可仲裁性 

分 类 号：D915.7[政治法律—诉讼法学]