Bibliographie sélective OHADA

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.

后疫情时代，以虚拟听证为代表的虚拟现实技术在国际商事仲裁领域的广泛引用，对原本以当事人意思自治主义为核心的国际商事仲裁传统制度造成了冲击，形成了仲裁机构权力相对扩大的现象。一方面，其体现为在当事人的意思自治与仲裁庭权力发生分歧，并诉诸法院解决纠纷之时，法院在事实上驳回了当事人的诉请、支持了仲裁庭的诉求；另一方面，则体现为虚拟听证作为国际商事仲裁领域提高仲裁效率的关键切入点，在一定程度上和当事人追求的公平之间出现碰撞。因此，为了缓解仲裁当事人和仲裁机构的矛盾、平衡公平和效率的冲突，应当从实质上规范仲裁机构的行为、从形式上增加仲裁机构的公信力，在制度层面和技术层面对仲裁庭权力进行有效制约。 In the post-epidemic era, the extensive use of virtual reality technology in the field of international commercial arbitration, represented by virtual hearings, has impacted the traditional system of international commercial arbitration centered on party autonomy, resulting in the relative expansion of the power of arbitral institutions. On the one hand, it is reflected in the party’s autonomy and arbitral tribunal power disagreement, and resort to the court to resolve disputes, the court in fact rejected the party’s claim, support the arbitral tribunal’s claim; on the other hand, it is reflected in the virtual hearing as the international commercial arbitration field to improve the efficiency of arbitration key entry point, to a certain extent, and the parties to the pursuit of fairness of the collision between. Therefore, in order to alleviate the contradiction between the parties to arbitration and the arbitration institution, and to balance the conflict between fairness and efficiency, it is necessary to regulate the behavior of the arbitration institution in terms of substance, to increase the credibility of the arbitration institution in terms of form, and to impose effective constraints on the power of the arbitration tribunal at the institutional level and at the technical level.

第三方资助是国际仲裁领域较为新兴的制度，其由于可以有效帮助当事人解决仲裁高昂费用，承担仲裁败诉风险等优点，受到国际商事主体和仲裁机构的青睐和认可。第三方资助给当事人带来利益的同时，也会给仲裁程序造成可能的负面影响。如何让第三方资助更好地服务国际仲裁，与国际仲裁和谐发展，采取何种措施规制第三方资助的发展，是研究第三方资助需要重点关注的问题。本文在分析第三方资助对国际仲裁程序带来的积极价值和可能存在的风险的基础上，研究现有包含第三方资助规则的仲裁规则，比较各个仲裁机构对披露规则的不同规定。提出在《仲裁法》中确立国际仲裁第三方资助的合法性，并作出原则性规定，通过仲裁机构制定规则指引，以期为我国国际仲裁机构更好发展第三方资助制度建立法律基础。 Third-party funding is a relatively new system in the field of international arbitration, which is favored and recognized by international commercial subjects and arbitration institutions because it can effectively help the parties to solve the high cost of arbitration and bear the risk of losing the arbitration. While the third-party funding brings benefits to the parties, it also brings possible negative effects to the arbitration process. How to make third-party funding better serve international arbitration, develop harmoniously with international arbitration, and what measures to take to regulate the development of third-party funding are the issues that need to be focused on in the study of third-party funding. Based on the analysis of the positive value and possible risks brought by third-party funding to international arbitration proceedings, this paper studies the existing arbitration rules containing third-party funding rules and compares the different provisions of disclosure rules of various arbitration institutions. It is proposed to establish the legality of third-party funding for international arbitration in the Arbitration Law, and make provisions in principle, and formulate rules and guidelines through arbitration institutions, so as to establish a legal basis for the better development of third-party funding system for international arbitration institutions in China.

随着民商事交往活动的发展，固守仲裁协议相对性已然无法应对现实需求，在一些特殊情况下仲裁协议的效力被认定应当扩展到非签署方。我国《民法典》对债权人代位权制度仅规定了诉讼的行权方式，在遇到次债务人基于有效仲裁协议提出的抗辩时，各地法院体现出了截然相反的裁判立场。仲裁协议效力在债权人代位权制度中的扩张将实现对债权人债权的保障以及次债务人程序权利的维护的双重效果。笔者认为，仲裁协议效力在债权人代位权制度中的扩张也能够得到债权人代位权制度和仲裁之性质的内在支撑。在此基础上，笔者提出了仲裁协议效力扩张在债权人代位权制度中进行扩张的具体方式。 With the development of civil and commercial interactions, the relativity of the arbitration agreement is no longer able to cope with the needs of reality, and the validity of the arbitration agreement has been recognized to be extended to non-signatory parties under some special circumstances. The “Civil Code” of China provides for the subrogation system of creditors only in the form of litigation, and the courts in different places have reflected the opposite position of adjudication when faced with the defenses raised by sub-debtors based on a valid arbitration agreement. The expansion of the effect of arbitration agreement in the creditor subrogation system has the dual effect of safeguarding the creditor’s claim and preserving the procedural rights of the sub-debtor. The author believes that the expansion of the effect of arbitration agreement in the subrogation system of creditors can also be supported by the subrogation system of creditors and the nature of arbitration. On this basis, the author proposes a specific way for the expansion of arbitration agreement effect in the creditor subrogation system.

国际商事仲裁协议作为国际商事仲裁活动的开端，其效力直接关系到整个仲裁程序能否顺利进行，关系到仲裁裁决是否能被承认与执行以及纠纷能否得到顺利解决。司法实践中，法院通常从对仲裁协议效力要件审查入手，审查内容包括协议的书面性、仲裁事项、仲裁机构和当事人的意思表示等要件。除此之外，仲裁协议的准据法也是法院在审查过程中关注的对象。当前实践中仍存在一些问题亟待解决，在促进仲裁工作不断发展的前提下，通过尊重当事人意思自治、弱化仲裁机构选定的强制性规定、完善“使其有效”原则，来争取使更多的仲裁协议能够得到认可。 As the beginning of international commercial arbitration, the effectiveness of the international commercial arbitration agreement is directly related to whether the whole arbitration procedure can proceed smoothly, whether the arbitration award can be recognized and enforced, and whether the dispute can be successfully resolved. In judicial practice, the court usually starts with the examination of the validity elements of the arbitration agreement, including the written nature of the agreement, the arbitration matters, the expression of the intention of the arbitration institution and the parties. In addition, the applicable law of the arbitration agreement is also the object of attention of the court in the process of review. At present, there are still some problems to be solved in practice. On the premise of promoting the continuous development of arbitration work, we should respect the autonomy of the parties’ will, weaken the mandatory provisions on the selection of arbitration institutions, and improve the principle of “making it effective”, so that more arbitration agreements can be recognized.

国际投资仲裁发轫于国际商事仲裁，但二者之间存在不小的差异，因此对国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查应区别于对商事仲裁裁决的司法审查。国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查宜遵循全面审查原则，法院在对条约进行解释时宜力求探索双方当事人缔约时原意。当前我国国内城市被选为仲裁地竞争力不足，国内仲裁机构和仲裁员缺乏参与国际投资仲裁实践经验，在签订部分对外投资协定时，未明确规定透明度条款，立法上我国对临时仲裁的态度不明，亦未明确规定仲裁裁决国籍判断标准等，上述问题导致我国国内法院无权或无法有效对国际投资仲裁裁决进行司法审查，不利于提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的话语权，就此本文提出一些可能的解决方案，以期完善我国对投资仲裁裁决的司法审查制度，提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的地位。 International investment arbitration originated from international commercial arbitration, but there are significant differences between the two. Therefore, judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should be distinguished from that of commercial arbitration awards. Judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should adhere to the principle of comprehensive review, and courts should strive to uncover the original intent of the contracting parties when interpreting treaties. Currently, cities in China lack competitiveness as venues for arbitration. Domestic arbitration institutions and arbitrators have limited experience in international investment arbitration practice. Some foreign investment agreements signed by China do not explicitly stipulate transparency clauses. Additionally, China’s legislative stance on ad hoc arbitration is unclear, and the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitration awards are not explicitly defined. These issues result in domestic courts either lacking jurisdiction or being unable to effectively conduct judicial review of international investment arbitration awards, which undermines China’s discourse power in the field of international investment arbitration. This paper proposes several possible solutions to address these challenges, aiming to improve China’s judicial review system for investment arbitration on awards and enhance the country’s standing in the field of international investment arbitration.

由于商事交易具有复杂性，导致仲裁裁决可能对案外人实体权利造成侵犯。现行《仲裁法》、《民事诉 讼法》并未对案外人提供充足的程序性救济。理论上学者提出了不同的路径。本文认为案外人通过另行 起诉的途径救济与司法实务形成抵牾。同时对案外人的保护不应在仲裁程序中予以解决，即在仲裁制度 中第三人以及第三人撤销仲裁制度不应存在。我国可借鉴仲裁案外人异议之诉制度，在仲裁执行依据产 生后，案外人获知其权益受损后就可以提起异议之诉以阻断执行的开启或阻止当事人自觉履行；即使执 行程序终结，仲裁当事人取得执行标的并无实体法依据，案外人仍可提起异议之诉，使其回复到不受侵 害的圆满状态。此时案外人异议之诉本质上并不是撤销部分或全部仲裁裁决，而是剥夺该部分仲裁裁决 的执行力以维护自身权益。 Due to the complexity of commercial transactions, arbitral awards may infringe on the substantive rights of outsiders. The current Arbitration Law and Civil Procedure Law do not provide sufficient procedural relief for outsiders. Theoretically, scholars have proposed different paths. This article argues that the relief of outsiders through separate litigation is in conflict with judicial practice. At the same time, the protection of outsiders should not be resolved in the arbitration procedure, that is, in the arbitration system, there should be no third party and the third party revocation ar bitration system. China can learn from the system of objection litigation by outsiders in arbitra tion cases, after the basis for arbitration enforcement is generated, after the outsider learns that his rights and interests have been damaged, he can file an objection lawsuit to block the com mencement of enforcement or prevent the parties from consciously performing; Even if the en forcement procedure is concluded and there is no substantive legal basis for the parties to the ar bitration to obtain the subject matter of enforcement, the outsider may still file an opposition lawsuit to restore the party to a satisfactory state of infringement. In this case, the objection law suit of an outsider is not essentially to revoke part or all arbitral awards, but to deprive the enforcement of that part of the arbitral award in order to protect its own rights and interests.