Bibliographie sélective OHADA

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.