Bibliographie sélective OHADA

国际投资仲裁的弊端随着国际投资仲裁案件数量的攀升而逐渐暴露，诸多国家对现有国际投资仲裁机制表达了质疑与不满。本应对国际投资仲裁裁决进行纠正的纠错机制却因其局限性而无法发挥其功能，导致国际投资仲裁的问题未得到有效解决。因此，为了突破既存纠错机制的困境并解决国际投资仲裁面临的问题，上诉机制因其理论优越性而成为重点讨论议题。在支持引入上诉机制的立场上，应当将上诉机制的审查范围扩大且不应在上诉机制中设立遵循先例制度。在各国提交的关于上诉机制引入模式的不同方案中应当选择常设多边上诉机制，并借鉴《基于条约的投资者–国家间仲裁透明度公约》的经验构建常设多边上诉机制引入路径。 The drawbacks of international investment arbitration have gradually been exposed with the rising number of international investment arbitration cases, and many states have expressed doubts and dissatisfaction with the existing international investment arbitration mechanism. The error-correction mechanism, which is supposed to correct international investment arbitral awards, is unable to perform its function because of its limitations, with the result that the problems of international investment arbitration have not been effectively resolved. Therefore, in order to break through the predicament of the existing error-correction mechanism and solve the problems faced by international investment arbitration, the appellate mechanism has become a key topic of discussion because of its theoretical superiority. From the position of supporting the introduction of an appellate mechanism, the scope of review of the appellate mechanism should be expanded, and a precedent-following system should not be established within the appellate mechanism. Among the different proposals submitted by various states regarding the model for introducing an appellate mechanism, a permanent multilateral appellate mechanism should be chosen, and the path for introducing such a mechanism should be constructed by drawing on the experience of the Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration.

随着2025年新修订《中华人民共和国仲裁法》正式引入临时仲裁制度，我国仲裁体系迈入“机构 + 临时”双轨制发展新阶段。仲裁员选任作为临时仲裁程序的核心环节，其法律制度设计直接关系到临时仲裁的公正性、高效性与国际公信力。然而我国当前对于仲裁员的选任仍有不足，本文将对于当前的不足之处进行分析并提出完善建议，为临时仲裁制度的健康发展提供一定的思路。 With the formal introduction of the temporary arbitration system into the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China in 2025, China’s arbitration system has entered a new stage of dual-track development featuring both institutional and temporary arbitration. As the core component of temporary arbitration procedures, the legal system design for arbitrator appointment directly impacts the fairness, efficiency, and international credibility of temporary arbitration. However, there are still deficiencies in the current appointment of arbitrators in China. This article will analyze the existing shortcomings and propose improvement suggestions, providing some ideas for the healthy development of the temporary arbitration system.

全球经济一体化背景下，涉外争议数量激增，国际商事仲裁协议的有效性依赖于准确认定仲裁合意。在仲裁合意的形式上，《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(以下简称《纽约公约》)确立了仲裁协议采用书面形式的规则，但扩张了书面形式范围。但是我国现行《仲裁法》严格规定了仲裁合意需采用书面形式，我国涉外仲裁实践中还存在仲裁地与仲裁机构约定不明、准据法约定不明、合同仲裁条款的效力是否及于补充协议等问题。针对上述问题，本文以《纽约公约》为框架，结合国际商事实践与2025年新修订《仲裁法》的规定，针对仲裁合意形式存在瑕疵，构建“形式审查–实质判断–救济补正”的系统化认定路径；通过“明示合意”确定仲裁地与准据法；建立“分层默示推定”规则以及统一的仲裁协议独立协议适用标准，并结合交易的连续性行为与当事人的后续行为，认定合同仲裁条款的效力及于补充协议；从而优化“仲裁庭–法院”程序衔接，提升中国国际商事纠纷中涉外仲裁合意认定的确定性和稳定性，为新《仲裁法》的适用提供参考，进一步推动中国涉外仲裁制度与国际规则深度融合。 In the context of global economic integration, the number of cross-border disputes has surged, and the validity of international commercial arbitration agreements depends on the accurate determination of arbitration consent. Firstly, in terms of the form of arbitration consent, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred to as the New York Convention) establishes the requirement for arbitration agreements to be in writing but has expanded the scope of written forms. However, China’s current Arbitration Law imposes strict written form requirements for arbitration consent, increasing the difficulty of determining the validity of cross-border arbitration agreements. Secondly, in China’s cross-border arbitration practice, issues such as ambiguous designation of the seat of arbitration and arbitral institutions, unclear choice of governing law, and whether the arbitration clause in the main contract extends to supplementary agreements also persist. To address these issues, this paper adopts the framework of the New York Convention, combines international commercial practices with the provisions of the newly revised Arbitration Law of 2025, and proposes a systematic approach for identifying arbitration consent with formal defects, constructing a path of “formal review - substantive judgment - remedial validation”. It aims to determine the seat of arbitration and governing law through “express consent”, establish a “layered implied presumption” rule, and develop a unified standard for the application of independent arbitration agreements. Furthermore, by considering the continuity of transactions and the subsequent conduct of the parties, it seeks to determine whether the arbitration clause in the main contract extends to supplementary agreements. This approach optimizes the procedural coordination between the “arbitral tribunal and the court”, enhances the certainty and stability of identifying cross-border arbitration consent in international commercial disputes in China, provides references for the application of the new Arbitration Law, and further promotes the deep integration of China’s cross-border arbitration system with international rules.

国际航空纠纷具有国际性并且在解决纠纷的过程中对高效有着高度追求，机构仲裁在启动和组成上的程序周期相较于临时仲裁而言，往往难以满足行业“快速止损”的需求。临时仲裁作为一种灵活的仲裁模式，为更好地解决国际航空纠纷提供了解决路径。但是我国国际航空临时仲裁程序发展仍面临诸多困难，文章意在探究我国国际航空临时仲裁程序目前存在的问题，并对促进该制度发展提出相应的建议。 International aviation disputes are international and have a high pursuit of efficiency in the process of dispute resolution, and the procedural cycle of institutional arbitration in initiation and composition often finds it difficult to meet the industry’s demand for “quick stop loss” compared with ad hoc arbitration. As a flexible arbitration model, ad hoc arbitration provides a way to better resolve international aviation disputes. However, the development of international aviation ad hoc arbitration procedures in our country still faces many difficulties, and this paper aims to explore the current problems existing in our country’s international aviation ad hoc arbitration procedures and put forward corresponding suggestions for promoting the development of the system.

《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》作为国际货物销售领域的基石性法律文件，其诞生背景远早于全球电子商务的兴起，却持续适用于跨境电子商务交易。本文在形式自由与送达主义框架内，论证CISG因其内在的合同法中立原则而对电子合同有效性所具备的强大解释力。在此基础上，论文剖析CISG在数字时代面临的深层挑战，即其核心范畴“货物”概念在数字产品领域的边界争议、对B2C消费者合同的结构性排除所引发的法律适用碎片化，以及具体电子通信规则供给不足导致的解释不确定性。通过比较分析美国、德国等法域的最新司法实践，并引入《国际合同使用电子通信公约》作为功能性补充工具，最终论证CISG的现代化路径无须诉诸可能破坏其统一性的文本修订，而应结合不同学说理论，借由司法能动主义对其一般原则进行目的性解释，并与外部公约形成功能互补，从而协同构建一个能够适应技术快速迭代、兼具稳定、统一与可预期性的全球数字贸易法律生态 Although conceived in a pre-digital era, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Inter-national Sale of Goods (CISG) continues to serve as the governing law for a vast number of cross-border e-commerce transactions. This article posits that the CISG’s foundational principles, notably the freedom of form and the receipt rule for contract formation, provide a robust framework for validating electronic contracts. It then delves into the profound challenges the CISG encounters in the digital age: the contentious delineation of “goods” to encompass digital products, the structural exclusion of B2C consumer contracts which leads to legal fragmentation, and the lack of specific rules for electronic communications fostering interpretive ambiguity. Through a comparative analysis of recent jurisprudence from the United States, Germany, and Singapore, and by integrating the UNCITRAL Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts as a functional complement, this study contends that the CISG does not require textual amendment. Instead, its continued relevance can be secured through judicial activism that engages in an evolutionary interpretation of its general principles, coupled with strategic synergy with external conventions, thereby forging a stable, uniform, and predictable legal ecosystem for global digital trade.

随着我国电子商务的快速发展，消费纠纷的高频化、小额化与跨地域性特征对传统争议解决机制提出挑战。当今社会各方面发展都强调数字化转型，数字赋能正如火如荼为电子商务行业源源不断地注入能量。从技术层面来说，电商消费纠纷仲裁可以通过在线流程、区块链存证等技术手段实现，从而显著降低纠纷解决成本并提升效率。但在数据尚未正式在法律层面确权或者明确为某种权益的背景下，加之消费纠纷对立双方在信息、地位、经济上天然的不对等性，设计何种仲裁规则才能实质上促使纠纷双方形成平等的法律地位，从而公正地保护双方合法权益，有效化解纠纷是一个值得研究的问题。本文在传统商事仲裁、消费仲裁在域外实践以及国内最新试验实践的基础上，研究在我国电子商务场域建立消费仲裁制度的必要性、可能性与可行性，设置“消费者友好型”的仲裁规则，以期为消费仲裁制度制定者与电商平台治理者提供参考。 With the rapid development of e-commerce in China, the high-frequency, small amount and cross-regional nature of consumer disputes have challenged the traditional dispute resolution mechanism. All aspects of development in today’s society emphasize digital transformation, and digital empowerment is in full swing to inject energy into the e-commerce industry. From the technical level, e-commerce consumer dispute arbitration can be realized through online processes, blockchain deposits and other technological means, thus significantly reducing the cost of dispute resolution and improving efficiency. However, against the backdrop of data not yet being formally recognized or defined as a specific right at the legal level, and considering the inherent inequality between the opposing parties in consumer disputes in terms of information, status, and economic power, designing arbitration rules that can effectively promote equality in legal status between the disputing parties, thereby fairly protecting the legitimate rights and interests of both sides and effectively resolving disputes, is a question worthy of in-depth study. On the basis of traditional commercial arbitration, consumer arbitration in overseas practice and the latest domestic experimental practice, this paper studies the necessity, possibility and feasibility of establishing consumer arbitration system in China’s e-commerce field, and sets up “consumer-friendly” arbitration rules, with a view to providing references for the makers of consumer arbitration system and e-commerce platforms’ governors.

有效的仲裁协议是仲裁的前提，仲裁协议的相对性限制承受实体权利义务的非仲裁协议签字方成为仲裁程序中的适格主体，但是仲裁协议效力扩张理论和合并仲裁理论为第三人参与仲裁程序提供了理论依据。为便于纠纷化解，涉及利益的当事人权益得以维护，仲裁第三人程序的构建能帮助解决当前复杂的纠纷。本文以仲裁协议为标准，结合仲裁理论将仲裁第三人分为基于同一仲裁协议的第三人和基于不同仲裁协议的第三人，并指出仲裁第三人制度要解决的核心问题是真正的纠纷当事人进入仲裁程序的问题。然后对相关案例和现有法律进行分析；对仲裁第三人程序准入路径分析，提出仲裁第三人程序准入模型，明确了第三人进入仲裁程序后可以成为当事人。最后对我国构建仲裁第三人制度的构建提出转变仲裁理念，立法改革 An effective arbitration agreement is the prerequisite for arbitration. The relativity of the arbitration agreement restricts non-signatories who bear substantive rights and obligations from becoming qualified parties in the arbitration process. However, theories on the expansion of the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and consolidated arbitration provide theoretical grounds for third-party participation in arbitration proceedings. To facilitate dispute resolution and protect the interests of parties involved, the establishment of an arbitration third-party procedure can help address current complex disputes. This paper uses the arbitration agreement as a standard and combines arbitration theory to categorize arbitration third parties into those based on the same arbitration agreement and those based on different arbitration agreements. It points out that the core issue that the arbitration third-party system aims to solve is the entry of genuine dispute parties into the arbitration process. Then, it analyzes relevant cases and existing laws; examines the pathways for access to the arbitration third-party procedure and proposes an access model for the arbitration third-party procedure, clarifying that third parties can become parties after entering the arbitration process. Finally, it suggests transforming arbitration concepts and legislative reforms to establish an arbitration third-party system in China.

法院作为司法公权力的拥有者，掌握着对司法程序中的强制措施的实施权力。在仲裁程序中，由于以当事人合意为基础的仲裁庭权力不天然包含“强制执行力”，因此在仲裁程序的诸多环节，都必须依靠法院的参与来完成命令发布与措施执行。但是，法院职权在仲裁程序中不应无限延伸，出于对“公正与效率”双位价值的平衡追求，必须深刻厘清法院在仲裁程序中的权力配置，确定其参与仲裁程序的整体职能。以仲裁法的修订为背景，《仲裁法》(修订意见稿)中增添的临时措施能够为法院与仲裁庭、仲裁机构的三方权力配置提供良好视角。法院在仲裁程序各个制度层面与阶段所担任的角色，本质上还应当回归以其“裁决权力的来源”为中心的理论基础。 As the owner of judicial public power, the court holds the power to implement compulsory measures in judicial procedures. In arbitration proceedings, due to the fact that the power of the arbitration tribunal based on the agreement of the parties does not naturally include “enforceability”, it is necessary to rely on the participation of the court in many aspects of the arbitration procedure to complete the issuance of orders and the enforcement of measures. However, the power of the court should not be infinitely extended in the arbitration procedure. In pursuit of a balance between the values of “fairness and efficiency”, it is necessary to deeply clarify the power allocation of the court in the arbitration procedure and determine its overall function of participating in the arbitration procedure. Against the backdrop of the revision of the Arbitration Law, the addition of temporary measures in the revised draft of the Arbitration Law can provide a good perspective for the tripartite power allocation between courts, arbitration tribunals, and arbitration institutions. The role played by the court in various institutional levels and stages of arbitration proceedings should essentially return to the theoretical foundation centered on its “source of arbitration power”.

禁诉令是一种起源于英国的处理平行程序的独特救济方式，其在国际商事仲裁中的适用，不同于在国际民事诉讼程序中的适用，主要是为了协调法院与仲裁庭之间的管辖权冲突，往往不涉及公共利益，且对国际礼让的考察相对宽松。国际商事仲裁中禁诉令的签发主体包括法院和仲裁庭，经对比研讨可发现，这两者签发禁诉令条件的起点都在确认仲裁协议的有效性，且最明显的差别在于对国际礼让因素的考察。我国商事仲裁禁诉令制度的立法和实践几乎为空白，这使得我国落后于国际禁诉令制度的发展趋势，学者对于在国内使用禁诉令众说纷纭，并各自提出了相应的解决方案，这对我国禁诉令制度的构建启发颇深。 Anti-suit injunctions are a unique form of relief that originated from the UK for dealing with parallel proceedings. Their application in international commercial arbitration differs from that in international civil litigation, mainly aiming to reconcile jurisdictional conflicts between courts and arbitral tribunals. The issuance of such injunctions often does not involve public interests and the examination of international comity is relatively lenient. In international commercial arbitration, the issuers of anti-suit injunctions include courts and arbitral tribunals. Through comparative study, it can be found that the starting point for both to issue anti-suit injunctions is the confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and the most obvious difference lies in the examination of the international comity factor. The legislation and practice of the anti-suit injunction system in China’s commercial arbitration are almost blank, which makes China lag behind the development trend of the international anti-suit injunction system. Scholars have diverse opinions on the use of anti-suit injunctions domestically and have proposed corresponding solutions respectively, which provide significant inspiration for the construction of China’s anti-suit injunction system.

随着社会的发展以及科技的进步，特别是经历了三年疫情之后，在线工作以及网络庭审等数字化技术也趋于普遍。数字化技术的发展和应用为商事仲裁带来了诸多机遇，例如有效提高效率、降低成本、增强透明度和便捷性。通过电子化提交文件、在线视频庭审、电子送达等方式，商事仲裁程序可以更加迅速地进行，同时减少了对物理空间和纸质文件的依赖。电子送达作为商事仲裁程序中的重要环节，是商事仲裁数字化发展进程中的必然方向。电子送达有着即时性、便捷性、成本低等优势，但因仲裁委员会的独立性，各仲裁委员会的仲裁规则中，设置了不同的电子送达规范，这不利于电子送达的统一适用性，也不利于电子送达的长远发展。本文重点分析电子送达制度的优势及不足，为完善商事仲裁的电子送达制度提出切实可行的建议。 With the development of society and the advancement of technology, especially after three years of COVID-19, digital technologies such as online work and online court trials have become more common. The development and application of digital technology have brought many opportunities for commercial arbitration, such as effectively improving efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing transparency and convenience. The process of commercial arbitration has been accelerated through electronic submission of documents, online court trials, and electronic delivery, while reducing reliance on physical space and paper documents. Electronic delivery, as an important part of commercial arbitration procedures, is an inevitable direction in the digital development process of commercial arbitration. Electronic delivery has the advantages of immediacy, convenience, and low cost. However, due to the independence of arbitration commissions, different electronic delivery standards are set in the arbitration rules of each arbitration commission, which is not conducive to the unified applicability of electronic delivery and the long-term development of electronic delivery. This article focuses on analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the electronic delivery system, and proposes suggestions for improving the electronic delivery system in commercial arbitration.

行政协议在社会管理领域的广泛应用凸显出服务型政府柔性管理的特点。理论界过分重视行政协议的“行政性”而忽略其“协议性”，不利于吸引社会资本合作与纠纷的高效解决。本文立足于行政协议“行政性”与“协议性”的双重属性，基于德国双阶层理论，参考法国的实践经验，阐述行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序的理论基础。实践中行政协议纠纷呈现高增长态势，法院办案压力不容小觑；新《仲裁法》草案删除平等主体规定，为行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序提供制度空间；仲裁程序具有专业性、高效性特点，均为行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序提供现实正当性基础。产生行政协议纠纷时应结合争议条款的性质、产生的时间点、内容等综合判断；完全行政性质的行政协议纠纷禁止仲裁，否则允许采用仲裁程序解决争议；仲裁机构应专门设置行政争议解决人员及部门。 The wide application of administrative agreements in the field of social management highlights the characteristics of flexible management of service-oriented governments. The theoretical community attaches too much importance to the “administrative” nature of administrative agreements and ignores their “agreement”, which is not conducive to attracting social capital cooperation and efficient dispute resolution. Based on the dual attributes of “administrative” and “agreement” of administrative agreements, this paper expounds the theoretical basis for the application of arbitration procedures in administrative agreement disputes based on the two-tier theory of Germany and with reference to the practical experience of France. In practice, administrative agreement disputes have shown a high growth trend, and the pressure on courts to handle cases should not be underestimated. The new Arbitration Law deletes the provision on equal subjects to provide institutional space for the application of arbitration procedures for administrative agreement disputes. The arbitration procedure is professional and efficient, and provides a realistic and legitimate basis for the application of arbitration procedures for administrative agreement disputes. When a dispute arises over an administrative agreement, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on the nature, time and content of the disputed clause; Arbitration is prohibited for administrative agreement disputes of a completely administrative nature, otherwise arbitration procedures are allowed to be used to resolve disputes; Arbitration institutions shall set up special administrative dispute resolution personnel and departments.

我国立法规定债权人以诉讼方式行使代位权，但是由于存在债权人与债务人、债务人与次债务人、债权人与次债务人三种交互错杂的民事法律关系，因此而产生各方利益权衡的难题。原《合同法司法解释(一)》目前已经废止，且现行的《民事诉讼法》及相关司法解释中并未对代位权诉讼的管辖作出规定，在实践中，代位权诉讼的管辖应当如何确定，代位权特殊地域管辖与仲裁管辖应当如何协调适用存在认识分歧。虽然代位权纠纷是一种常见的争议类型，但司法实践是一个循序渐进的过程，有必要对基于个案的分散性规则进行归纳整合，以更好地服务于代位权与仲裁制度的理论发展与规则适用。基于此，本文将近几年司法实践中的代位权管辖纠纷案例以及相关学术观点进行整合，探析化解仲裁协议与代位权行使之间的冲突的有效路径，以期能促进司法实务界对该问题进一步统一认识，进而减少因程序问题理解不一致导致的司法资源浪费。 China’s legislation provides that the creditor to litigation to exercise subrogation, but due to the existence of the creditor and the debtor, the debtor and the relative, the creditor and the relative of the three kinds of interlocking civil legal relations, and therefore the interests of all parties to produce the problem of weighing. The original “contract law judicial interpretation (a)” has been repealed, and the current “civil procedure law” and the relevant judicial interpretation of the subrogation lawsuit did not make provisions of jurisdiction, in practice, subrogation lawsuit jurisdiction should be how to determine the subrogation of special territorial jurisdiction and arbitration jurisdiction should be coordinated with the application of the existence of differences in understanding. This paper will judicially practice cases and related academic views on subrogation litigation jurisdiction, with a view to promote the judicial practice on the issue of further unification of understanding, thereby reducing the waste of judicial resources due to inconsistent understanding of procedural issues.

在当前司法实践中，重新仲裁制度可以有效减轻当事人的诉讼负担，缓解司法压力，但是我国的重新仲裁制度还有很大不足，重新仲裁制度主要适用于实体问题，对于程序性问题关注较少，并且重新仲裁与仲裁裁决的终局性和既判力相矛盾，重新仲裁的启动主体与审理主体过于单一。重新仲裁制度应当适用于程序瑕疵，而非实体争议，要发挥撤销仲裁的积极作用，化解重新仲裁与仲裁裁决的终局性和既判力的矛盾，通过规范重新仲裁的启动主体和审理主体，明确重新仲裁的主体，来完善重新仲裁程序，为法院提供合理、具体、可操作的适用思路。 In the current judicial practice, the re-arbitration system can effectively reduce the litigation burden of the parties and alleviate the judicial pressure, but there are still great deficiencies in China’s re-arbitration system, which is mainly applicable to substantive issues, and pays less attention to procedural issues, and the re-arbitration contradicts the finality and res judicata of the arbitral award, and the initiation of re-arbitration and the subject of the trial are too single. The re-arbitration system should be applied to procedural defects rather than substantive disputes, and should play a positive role in revoking arbitration, resolve the contradiction between the finality and res judicata between re-arbitration and arbitral awards, and improve the re-arbitration procedure by standardizing the initiation and hearing subjects of re-arbitration, and clarifying the subject of re-arbitration, so as to provide the courts with reasonable, specific and actionable application ideas.

国际商事智慧仲裁的萌芽与发展得益于互联网技术的革新，伴随着新型仲裁模式而来的是诸多法律问题，其中包括当事人事前未选择仲裁地，且争议发生后也无法及时达成对仲裁地选择的新合意。对此，非本地化仲裁理论虽认为仲裁庭只需按照当事人商定的规则进行仲裁，而无需受制于仲裁地的法律规范，但该理论的适用会面临巨大挑战，比如：现阶段还未出现纯粹的非本地化理论的应用案例、仲裁裁决的质量及仲裁的实用性是否会受到影响等。相反，淡化的中间立场或许更适合此情境下的国际商事智慧仲裁，既合理地尊重了当事人的意思自治，又将案件与仲裁地的法律规范连接起来，保障了裁决的法律效力。 The germination and development of international commercial smart arbitration benefited from the innovation of Internet technology. Along with the new arbitration model came many legal issues, including the fact that the parties did not choose the place of arbitration in advance, and they were unable to reach a timely agreement on the place of arbitration after the dispute occurred. In this regard, although the theory of non-localized arbitration holds that the arbitral tribunal only needs to conduct arbitration in accordance with the rules agreed upon by the parties and does not need to be subject to the legal norms of the place of arbitration, the application of this theory will face huge challenges. For example: at this stage, there are no pure application cases of non-localization theory, whether the quality of arbitration awards and the practicality of arbitration will be affected, etc. On the contrary, a downplayed middle position may be more suitable for international commercial smart arbitration in this situation. It not only reasonably respects the autonomy of the parties, but also connects the case with the legal norms of the arbitration place, ensuring the legal effect of the award.

随着“去法院中心主义”的改革，司法实践中仲裁机构的重要性越来越突出，通过仲裁分流案件的需求日益迫切，仲裁法修改在即，有必要构建更包容开放的仲裁制度。在担保制度中，主合同与从合同往往会出现约定管辖不一致的情形，当主合同约定仲裁管辖而从合同约定法院管辖或者未作约定时，主合同的仲裁协议能否扩张至担保合同是一个值得研究的问题。实践中同案不同判的现象时有发生，现行立法对仲裁协议效力扩张持否定态度，由此会产生债权人先起诉保证人的案件无法审理等一系列问题。解决上述问题需要做出原则规定、例外规定以及补充规则，在尊重当事人意思自治的基础上兼顾诉讼效率。 With the reform of “de-court centralism”, the importance of arbitration institutions has become more and more prominent in judicial practice, the demand for diverting cases through arbitration has become increasingly urgent, and the arbitration law is about to be revised, so it is necessary to build a more inclusive and open arbitration system. In the guarantee system, the agreed jurisdiction between the master contract and the accessory contract is often inconsistent. When the master contract stipulates arbitration jurisdiction and the accessory contract stipulates court jurisdiction or fails to do so, whether the arbitration agreement of the master contract can be extended to the guarantee contract is a problem worthy of study. In practice, the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case occurs from time to time, and the current legislation holds a negative attitude towards the expansion of the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement, which will lead to a series of problems such as the case that the creditor sued the guarantor first and could not be tried. To solve the above problems, we need to make principles, exceptions and supplementary rules, and give consideration to litigation efficiency on the basis of respecting the autonomy of the parties.

自WTO上诉机构停摆危机出现，WTO和成员一直在探索缓解僵局之法。其中利用《关于争端解决规则和程序的谅解》(DSU)第25条“速效仲裁”进行上诉替代的方案备受瞩目。2020年，欧盟、中国等WTO成员据此建立了《多方临时上诉仲裁安排》(MPIA)。事实上，DSU第25条在MPIA建立之前鲜有人注意，MPIA的建立使人们开始注意到这一条款。MPIA运行至今，取得了一些成果，但也有缺陷浮现，需要我们多加关注，及时调整。 Since the emergence of the WTO Appellate Body suspension crisis, the WTO and its members have been exploring ways to ease the deadlock. Among them, the option of using Article 25 of the Understanding on Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures (DSU) on “quick-impact arbitration” for appellate substitution has attracted a lot of attention, and in 2020, the European Union, China and other WTO members established the Multi-party Interim Appellate Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) on the basis of the Arrangement. As a matter of fact, little attention was paid to Article 25 of the DSU before the establishment of the MPIA, but the establishment of the MPIA has drawn people’s attention to this provision. The operation of the MPIA has achieved some results so far, but there are also shortcomings emerging, which require us to pay more attention to and make timely adjustments.

在国际商事仲裁领域，以各类仲裁规则、程序指南为代表的软法常常因其制定成本低和效率高的特征以及回应国际商事仲裁各领域中当事人典型需求的功能而成为当事人所偏好的选择，在国际商事仲裁发挥着广泛的影响力。但同时软法也在发挥其效用的过程中面临着挑战，包括当事人意思自治的局限和仲裁庭自由裁量权的局限。因此，在推进国际商事仲裁领域软法建设的过程中，需要警惕软法不当适用导致的陷阱，明确软法制定的必要性的同时也需要审慎权衡软法的适用，将软法与硬法相结合，使国际商事仲裁可以更好地满足当事人的需求，使国际商事仲裁中的软法成为公平公正解决当事人之间争议的有效途径。 In the field of international commercial arbitration, soft law, represented by various types of arbitration rules and procedural guides, is often preferred by the parties due to its low-cost and high- efficiency features, as well as its function of responding to the typical needs of the parties in various areas of international commercial arbitration, and it exerts a wide range of influence in international commercial arbitration. However, at the same time, soft law also faces challenges in realizing its usefulness, including the limits of party autonomy and the limits of arbitral tribunal discretion. Therefore, in promoting the construction of soft law in the field of international commercial arbitration, it is necessary to be alert to the pitfalls caused by the improper application of soft law, to clarify the necessity of soft law and at the same time weigh the application of soft law carefully, to combine soft law with hard law, so as to make international commercial arbitration better satisfy the needs of the parties, and to make soft law in international commercial arbitration become an effective way of resolving the disputes between the parties in a fair and just manner.

条约选购无论是从投资者的实践，还是从国际仲裁案件的数量来看，都已成为现代投资领域不可忽视的一个问题。文章第一部分对于条约选购的概念进行了界定，并总结了条约选购问题形成原因和不利影响，这是探究条约选购问题的前提。第二部分通过梳理国际仲裁中的各类案例，整理了影响国际仲裁庭识别条约选购问题的三个标准，根据这三个标准分析了仲裁庭对于条约选购的态度，总结得到条约选购问题并不是非法行为，国际仲裁庭甚至天然地会倾向于保护投资者，更多地会给国家造成损失。由此引出第三部分，即国家能够减少因条约选购问题带来的损失的三种主要的限制方法，并对三种方法进行利弊分析，以期给未来国家的条约缔结实践提供一定的建议。 Treaty shopping has become an issue that cannot be ignored in the modern investment field, both in terms of investors’ practice and the number of international arbitration cases. The first chapter of this article defines the concept of treaty shopping and summarizes the reasons for the formation of treaty shopping, which is the prerequisite for exploring the issue of treaty shopping. In the second chapter, by sorting out various cases in international arbitration, three criteria affecting the identification of treaty shopping by international arbitral tribunals are compiled, and the attitude of arbitral tribunals towards treaty shopping is analyzed according to these three criteria, concluding that treaty shopping is not an illegal act, and international arbitral tribunals are even naturally inclined to protect investors, which causes losses to states. The third chapter introduced the resulting three main methods of restriction that states can use to reduce losses caused by treaty shopping, and analyze the pros and cons of these three methods, with a view to providing some suggestions for future state treaty-making practice.

在经济全球化背景下，社会经济快速发展的新时代，商事交易无处不在，致使商事纠纷比以往更加频繁。在现代法治国家，诉讼制度作为一种公共救济手段，虽然是最常见的纠纷解决机制，但是基于案件分流的实际需要和仲裁制度本身具有的速度、效率等优势，承认并支持仲裁协议效力扩张的做法逐渐为各国所接受。从支持仲裁的角度来看，将合同相对性原则的例外作为支持仲裁协议效力扩张的理论基础是必要的。随着交易的深入发展，必然会出现更多的仲裁协议效力的扩张情形，需要充分考虑和权衡具体案件的情况，在维护仲裁协议效力和仲裁第三人利益之间寻求最佳平衡点。 Under the background of economic globalization, in the new era of rapid social and economic development, commercial transactions are everywhere, resulting in commercial disputes more frequent than before. In modern countries ruled by law, litigation system, as a means of public relief, is the most common dispute resolution mechanism, but based on the actual needs of case diversion and the advantages of arbitration system itself such as speed and efficiency, the practice of recognizing and supporting the expansion of the effectiveness of arbitration agreements has gradually accepted by all countries. From the perspective of supporting arbitration, it is necessary to take the exception of the principle of contract relativity as the theoretical basis to support the expansion of the validity of arbitration agreements. With the further development of transactions, there will inevitably be more cases of expansion of the effectiveness of arbitration agreements. It is necessary to fully consider and weigh the circumstances of specific cases, and seek the best balance between maintaining the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and the interests of third parties.

仲裁的优势之一是它的一裁终局性，但随着国际交易规模和金额的日益扩大，许多境外仲裁机构由此衍生出内部选择性上诉制度，深圳国际仲裁院借鉴知名境外仲裁机构引进此制度。但其中的许多规定与我国仲裁法以及民事诉讼法的规定存在冲突，并且可能导致当事人滥诉以及裁决在我国的承认与执行还存在问题。上述限制了复裁在我国的适用范围，在现行制度下，只能采取措施避免复裁制度与《仲裁法》的诸多规定相冲突。但随着国际贸易的发展，我国的《仲裁法》有必要作出调整，采取在部分地区尤其是高新技术产区进行试点以及制定符合仲裁制度特点的监督机制的方式来完善仲裁制度的发展。 One of the advantages of arbitration is its finality, but with the increasing scale and amount of international transactions, many overseas arbitration institutions have derived an internal optional appellate system, and the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration has introduced this system by drawing on well-known overseas arbitration institutions. However, many of these provisions conflict with the provisions of China’s Arbitration Law and Civil Procedure Law, and may lead to abusive litigation by the parties and problems in the recognition and enforcement of awards in China. The above limits the scope of application of the review in China, and under the current system, measures can only be taken to avoid conflicts between the review system and many provisions of the Arbitration Law. However, with the development of international trade, it is necessary to adjust China’s Arbitration Law, and improve the development of the arbitration system by carrying out pilot projects in some areas, especially in high-tech production areas, and formulating supervision mechanisms that are in line with the characteristics of the arbitration system.