论麦格理银行诉万达公司仲裁裁决的承认与执行——基于公共政策司法审查的视角  

On the Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitration Award of Macquarie Bank v.Wanda Company:From the Perspective of Public Policy Judicial Review

作　　者：邱杓丹 

机构地区：[1]复旦大学,上海200433 [2]温州大学,浙江温州325000

出　　处：《国际商务研究》2024年第3期86-97,共12页International Business Research

摘　　要：本文聚焦麦格理银行与万达公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决执行裁定书案中的公共政策司法审查问题展开论述。即使在单边制裁盛行的背景下,中国法院并未因本案涉及制裁和中国企业利益就支持万达公司的公共政策抗辩。解析《纽约公约》第5条第2款中公共政策的定义和各缔约国的实践,经济制裁被纳入公共政策只限于特定场域和条件。在中国法院的司法实践中,经济制裁和以《阻断办法》为代表的强制性规则并不必然等同于公共政策,中国的公共政策是以法律基本原则、主权、安全和发展利益的保护为司法审查标准。This article focuses on the issue of judicial review of public policy in the application by Macquarie Bank Limited and Wanda Holding Group Co.,Ltd.for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.Even though unilateral sanctions are prevalent,the Chinese court did not contest the public policy in favor of Wanda Co.because the sanctions and Chinese enterprise interests were involved in this case.Analyzing the definition of public policy in Article 5,Paragraph 2 of the New York Convention and the practice of contracting states,economic sanctions will be included in the public policy only in certain areas and under certain conditions.In the judicial practice of Chinese courts,economic sanctions and the mandatory rules represented by the Blocking Measures do not necessarily constitute public policy.The public policy in China is based on the protection of fundamental legal principles and the protection of sovereignty,security and development interests as the standard of judicial review.

关 键 词：仲裁裁决 单边制裁 公共政策 《纽约公约》 

分 类 号：D997.4[政治法律—国际法学]