检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:朱继胜[1]
出 处:《河北法学》2015年第2期97-106,共10页Hebei Law Science
基 金:广西民族大学中国-东盟研究中心(广西科学实验中心)2013年度开放课题项目<东盟一体化法律机制研究创新研究团队>(TD201301)
摘 要:CAFTA争端解决机制应依据自身需要来设计,其评判基准也只能是法的客观性原则。该机制是否符合客观性原则,取决于两个方面:是否具有RTA争端解决机制的品格;是否切合于CAFTA的个性。一些学者认为,该机制在适格主体、仲裁庭的组成、裁决的作出、裁决的执行及对补偿、反措施的规定上存在若干"缺陷"。倘依客观性原则予以检讨,这些所谓"缺陷"实际上并不存在。但是,该机制在如下三方面确有缺陷:在管辖权重叠的处理上,未确立CAFTA争端解决机制优先适用,及允许选择一个以上争端解决场所;在仲裁庭的组成上,独任仲裁员的确定与仲裁庭主席的指定;在仲裁裁决的作出上,隐含着裁决无法作出的逻辑缺陷,应予以完善。The CAFTA dispute settlement mechanism should be based on their own needs to design. Its evaluation standard is the principle of objectivity of law. Whether this mechanism is consistent with the principle of objectivity depends on two aspects: Whether it has the character of the dispute settlement mechanism of RTA and is suitable for CAFTA personality. Some scholars believe that the mechanism has some “defects” in the proper subject, composition of the arbitration tribunal, the arbitral award is made, the enforcement of the arbitration award, the compensation and the counter measures. If according to the princil31e of ohiectivitv to review, these so-called “defect” does not actually exist. However, this mechanism does have defects in the following three aspects : on the treatment of overlapping jurisdiction, it does not establish priority of CAFTA dispute settlement mechanism and allows the parties to select more than one dispute settlement place; on the composition of the arbitral tribunal, determine of the sole arbitrator and appoint of the arbitral tribunal president; on making the award, it implied a logical defects that cannot make decisions. These defects should be improved.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.28