論國際商務仲裁下當事人意思自治及公共秩序之衝突與調和

Abstract

國際商務仲裁是近年來最受歡迎的爭端解決機制，其原因之一即為仲裁程序富有彈性。使仲裁程序充滿彈性空間的，便是當事人意思自治原則。簽訂仲裁契約的雙方，藉由合意仲裁削除了雙方將訴訟帶入法院的權利，並排除法院的管轄權。由於當事人意思自治原則，所有仲裁的要件，幾乎在所有面向上，都取決於當事人的意願。但當事人意思自治並非毫無限制，在某些情況下有它的界限。公共秩序，正是其中一項限制當事人意思自治的理由。 公共秩序，一般指涉及公共利益之事，這個概念源自於每個國家對自己主權之完全行使。各國之間，會因為社會、經濟、文化各有不同，針對「公共秩序之內涵」有不同的看法。當事人之間的約定若違反公共秩序，則可能導致仲裁條款無效、仲裁判斷被撤銷、仲裁判斷被拒絕承認或執行等效果。不過，公共秩序也不見得必然凌駕於當事人意思自治之上，隨著公共秩序類型、性質之不同，以及違反情節之輕重，有時也會有當事人意思自治優先的情況。 本文將詳細介紹當事人意思自治與公共秩序之概念，以及二者在國際商務仲裁下之地位，並試圖透過案例研析，整理出兩者產生衝突的類型，瞭解仲裁庭或法院對此議題之看法。

International Commercial Arbitration is one of the most popular dispute resolution mechanisms in recent years due to the flexible nature of arbitration procedures. What made room for the flexibility is the principle of party autonomy. Parties waive their rights to bring dispute to the court and carve out the jurisdiction of the court by agreeing to arbitrate via an arbitration agreement. Due to such principle, the requirements for arbitration, almost at all fronts, are determined by the will of parties. However, party autonomy has its limits and restrictions, subject to certain boundaries. Public policy, for example, is one of the kinds. Public policy generally refers to matters related to public interest, and such concept derives from states fully exercising their sovereignty. Due to the differences in social, economic, and cultural aspects, the context of “public policy” differs from state to state. An arbitration agreement that violates public policy might lead to the invalidity of the agreement or cause the arbitral award to be dismissed or refused recognition or enforcement. Nonetheless, public policy does not necessarily override parties’ autonomy. Taking into consideration the types and nature of public policy, and the level of violation, there are scenarios where parties’ autonomy prevails. This paper introduces the concepts of party autonomy and public policy. It then explores their status under the international commercial arbitrations and tries to categorize their conflicting relations through analyzing related cases in order to find out arbitral tribunal’s or courts’ perspectives on this issue.