Bibliographie sélective OHADA

国际商事仲裁作为国际商事纠纷的解决机制，一直坚持“一裁终局”原则，因其高效解决纠纷的优势而受到国际商事当事人大量适用。“一裁终局”原则因仲裁裁决具有终局性从而能相对快速的解决彼此之间的纠纷，但在现存的裁决审查程序制度下，其“一裁终局”的模式也使得当事人无进一步就裁决中的实体错误进行纠正的可能。因此，为了更好地适应现今的国际商事环境，本文欲探讨在保障仲裁高效解决纠纷的优势的前提下，通过仲裁制度的设计，在国际商事仲裁中建立复裁机制，进一步提高国际商事仲裁裁决的公正性。 International commercial arbitration has always been a dispute resolution mechanism based on the principle of “final and binding” to efficiently resolve disputes, which has been widely used by international commercial parties. The “final and binding” principle can relatively quickly resolve disputes between parties because the arbitral award is final. However, under the existing system of arbitral award review procedures, the “final and binding” principle also means that parties have no further possibility to correct substantive errors in the award. Therefore, in order to better adapt to today’s international commercial environment, this article intends to discuss the establishment of a review mechanism in international commercial arbitration through the design of the arbitration system on the premise of ensuring the advantages of efficient dispute resolution by arbitration, so as to further improve the impartiality of international commercial arbitration awards.

仲裁协议是仲裁的起点与基石，但在我国的仲裁实践中仲裁协议内容不规范，出现各类瑕疵的情况比比皆是。我国的仲裁法对于瑕疵仲裁协议并没有规定针对性的解释原则或系统性的方法，只规定了当事人可以就纠纷达成补充协议，若无法达成补充协议，则该瑕疵仲裁协议无效。因此相较于国际上诸多尽可能将仲裁协议效力尽可能作有效认定的国家与国际组织而言，我国法院在裁定瑕疵仲裁协议的效力时往往会过于严苛，将协议效力裁定无效。本文目的在于借鉴外国法对于瑕疵仲裁协议效力的认定标准以及解释原则，为我国法院实践中针对瑕疵仲裁协议效力的处理提出行之有效的认定与解释原则。 The arbitration agreement is the starting point and cornerstone of arbitra-tion, but in China's arbitration practice, the content of the arbitration agreement is not standard-ized, and various defects are common. China’s arbitration law does not stipulate the principle of targeted interpretation or systematic method for defective arbitration agreements, but only stipu-lates that the parties may reach a supplementary agreement on the dispute, and if a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, the defective arbitration agreement is invalid. Therefore, compared with many international countries and international organizations that try to make as effective a determination as possible about the validity of an arbitration agreement, Chinese courts tend to be too strict in ruling on the validity of a defective arbitration agreement and rule that the validity of the agreement is invalid. The purpose of this paper is to refer to the determination standards and interpretation principles of foreign laws on the validity of defective arbitration agreements, and to propose effective principles for the determination and interpretation of the validity of defective ar-bitration agreements in the practice of Chinese courts.

国际商事仲裁协议的有效性关系到仲裁协议的仲裁准据法确定、裁决执行、仲裁机关选择等问题，因而在国际商事仲裁实践中具有重要意义。影响仲裁协议效力的原因一般为仲裁条款约定不明，约定机构不准确，协议内部矛盾等原因。对于国际贸易中，仲裁协议的效力可以参考国际通行的效力确定准则，尽可能撮合交易，确立有效性。可以通过利于有效性、准据法分裂和突破书面形式等辅助手段确定有效性，借以实现国际仲裁协议的有效性最大化。 The validity of an international commercial arbitration agreement is related to issues such as the determination of the applicable law of the arbitration agreement, the enforcement of the award, and the selection of the arbitration institution, so it is of great significance in the practice of international commercial arbitration. Reasons that affect the validity of an arbitration agreement are generally unclear stipulations in the arbitration clause, inaccurate agreement institutions, and internal contradictions in the agreement. For international trade, the validity of an arbitration agreement can refer to the internationally accepted criteria for determining the validity of an arbitration agreement to match transactions as much as possible and establish validity. Validity can be determined through auxiliary means such as favoring validity, splitting applicable law, and breaking through written forms, so as to maximize the validity of international arbitration agreements.

国际投资仲裁实践中，仲裁庭随意解释、扩大解释、解释不一致或背离缔约国真实意图的情形极为常见。《维也纳条约法公约》第31条至33条作为习惯国际法条约解释的黄金法则，对仲裁庭条约解释权的引导至关重要。利用法律解释理论，对《维也纳条约法公约》第31条的重构，利用该公约引导与规范仲裁庭的条约解释权，强化文本解释的框架作用，将文本解释与目的解释相结合，正确理解嗣后解释与系统解释的辅助作用，引入演化解释法，以推动仲裁庭正确理解投资条约条款，作出准确、有效、合理的解释。 In the practice of international investment arbitration, it is extremely common for arbitral tribunals to arbitrarily interpret, expand interpretation, interpret inconsist-ently or deviate from the true intent of the contracting parties. Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Con-vention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), as the golden rule of treaty interpretation in customary state law, are crucial in guiding the power of treaty interpretation of arbitral tribunals, using the theory of legal interpretation, the reconstruction of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Trea-ties, the use of the Convention to guide and rule the treaty interpretation power of the arbitral tri-bunal, strengthen the framework role of textual interpretation, combine textual interpretation with purposive interpretation, correctly understand the auxiliary role of subsequent interpretation and systematic interpretation, and introduce the evolutionary interpretation method in order to pro-mote the arbitral tribunal to correctly understand the provisions of investment treaties and make accurate, effective and reasonable interpretation.

仲裁保密性在传统上被默认为仲裁的一部分，是民商事仲裁的显著特征和重要优势，也是民商事主体选择仲裁的重要原因。但随着社会的发展，仲裁保密观念开始发生转变，提高仲裁透明度的呼声越来越高，仲裁保密性呈现明显弱化趋势。即便如此，基于仲裁保密制度自身的价值、公开先例的缺乏以及保密性作为仲裁的重要特征，仲裁保密性仍有存在的必要性，不能轻易废除。面对新的发展形势，仲裁保密性相关研究应与时俱进，不断创新，为仲裁活动的开展创造良好的保密环境。基于此，为更好地维护仲裁保密性，应明示仲裁保密义务、采用“原则 + 例外”立法模式，并重视仲裁规则对保密性的确认。 The confidentiality of arbitration is traditionally regarded as a part of arbitration by default, which is an important characteristic and advantage of civil and commercial arbitration, and also an important reason for civil and commercial subjects to choose arbitration. However, with the development of society, the concept of arbitration confidentiality began to change, the call to im-prove the transparency of arbitration is growing higher and higher, the confidentiality of arbitration shows a clear trend of weakening. Even so, due to the value of the arbitration confidentiality system, the lack of public precedent and confidentiality as an important feature of arbitration, the confidentiality of arbitration is still necessary and can not be easily abolished. Facing the new development situation, the research on arbitration confidentiality should keep pace with the times, keep innovating and create a good environment for the development of arbitration. Therefore, in order to protect the confidentiality of arbitration, we should clearly state the obligation of arbitration confidentiality, adopt the legislative mode of “principle + exception”, and attach importance to the confirmation of the confidentiality of arbitration rules.