论国际民商事仲裁与诉讼的平行程序  

On Parallel Proceedings between International Commercial Arbitration and Litigation

作　　者：涂广建[1] Tu Guangjian

机构地区：[1]澳门大学法学院

出　　处：《南大法学》2021年第4期15-33,共19页NanJing University Law Journal

摘　　要：根据《纽约公约》第2条,跨境民商事关系当事人选定仲裁意味着排除了各缔约国法院对相关争议的管辖,但由于《纽约公约》的“先天”缺陷,并未能做到彻底摒弃、排除国际民商事仲裁与诉讼的平行程序。当国际民商事仲裁与诉讼出现管辖冲突时,必须在司法机关与仲裁庭之间找到理性的衔接点和平衡点,合理划分它们之间的权限,有效化解它们之间的矛盾。目前,在国际及各国实践中主要存在三种解决国际民商事仲裁与诉讼平行程序问题的模式,即“消极效力”模式、“先行优先”模式和“诉讼与仲裁并行”模式。综合考量以上三种模式的优缺点,“消极效力”模式有助于提高仲裁程序效率、保障当事人意思自治并减少法院对仲裁程序的不当干预,较为适合用来处理仲裁与诉讼的平行程序问题,它也应当是我国《仲裁法》未来发展和改革所应采纳的模式。Parties’ consent to arbitration will exclude the jurisdiction of states’ courts by virtue of the rules set out in Article 2 of the New York Convention.But the Convention fails to successfully eradicate parallel proceedings between arbitral tribunals and state courts owing to its inherent defects.When a conflict arises between commercial arbitration and litigation proceedings,a rational balance must be struck between the judiciary and the arbitral tribunal,with a reasonable division of competence between the two bodies.Currently,there are three models to tackle this problem in practice:negative competence,Lis pendens and concurrence of both proceedings.Through a comprehensive review over pros and cons of each model,"negative competence"model is more appealing due to its promotion of efficiency,respect for party autonomy and minimum intervention of the judiciary.It should also be adopted by Chinese arbitration law for its future development and reform.

关 键 词：国际民商事仲裁 国际民商事诉讼 平行程序 《纽约公约》 

分 类 号：D997.4[政治法律—国际法学]