Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Empirical Study on the Truncated Arbitration System in China

중국의 결원중재제도에 관한 실증적 연구

  • 하현수 (전북대학교 상과대학 무역학과, 동 산업경제연구소)
  • Received : 2021.10.27
  • Accepted : 2021.11.29
  • Published : 2021.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Chinese courts seem to be indifferent or ignorant of truncated arbitration. In other words, the Chinese court canceled the arbitration award made by truncated arbitration except for the Pingdingsan Case among the four arbitration cases related to the domestic arbitration award reviewed in this paper on the ground that it violated the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure. A Chinese court has canceled the arbitration award by judging only based on the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the legal process of the violation of the arbitration procedure not by determining whether the domestic arbitration award made by the truncated arbitration meets the conditions for the application of truncated arbitration as stipulated in the Arbitration Rules. Moreover, it seems that the Chinese court made a serious error in the application of the relevant regulations in the Pingdingsan Case, which ruled that the truncated arbitration did not violate the legal process. In this case, the Chinese court admitted truncated arbitration under logic process that it was not necessary to wait until the final hearing to apply the truncated arbitraion because one arbitrator was absent before the final hearing, but the truncated arbitrator had already formed his/her opinion before the absence. However, in the case of Marshall Investment Corporation, a case related to foreign arbitration, the Chinese court rejected the approval and execution of the truncated arbitration award by strictly applying the laws and timing of the truncated arbitration. Since only one case has been identified in the main text, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment, but considering these cases, it seems to be that the Chinese courts apply different standards to domestic and foreign arbitration awards to determine the legality of truncated arbitration.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2021년도 전북대학교 연구기반 조성비 지원에 의하여 연구되었음.

References

  1. 馬占軍, "缺員仲裁法律制度的修改与完善", 「法學論壇」, 第160期, 2015.
  2. 劉貴祥, 孟祥, 何東寧, 林莹, "關于人民法院辦理仲裁裁決執行案件若干問題的規定的理解与適用", 「人民司法(應用)」, 2018年 第13期, 2018.
  3. 湯霞, "缺員仲裁制度略論", 「重慶科技學院學報(社會科學版)」, 2015年 第8期, 2015.
  4. 王吉文, "國際商事仲裁領域缺員仲裁制度的程序保障問題", 「北京仲裁」, 第77輯, 2011.
  5. 王眞眞, 田精燕, "論仲裁中缺員仲裁及其效力", 「法制博覽」, 2015年 第3期(上), 2015.
  6. 庄煒, "國際商事仲裁中的缺員仲裁", 「上海海事大學學報」, 2010年 第3期, 2010.
  7. 齊湘泉, "國際商事爭議缺員仲裁合法性質疑", 「比較法硏究」, 2011年 第5期, 2011.
  8. 池漫郊, "缺員仲裁的合法性", 「法學硏究」, 2007年 第6期, 2007.
  9. 陳延忠, "國際商事仲裁缺員仲裁廳裁決效力問題硏究", 「國際經濟法學刊」, 第16卷, 2009.
  10. 戚咪娜, "論當事人同意對缺員仲裁程序瑕疵的補正", 「上海法學硏究」, 2020年 第22卷, 2020.
  11. 馮小川, "從福船仲裁案看缺員仲裁的法律效力", 「海峽法學」, 總第66期, 2015.
  12. Born, Gary B., International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2020.
  13. Derains, Yves, Eric A. Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration(2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International, 2005.
  14. Gaillard, Emmanuel, John Savage, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
  15. Redfern, Alan, Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, 2004.
  16. Schwebel, Stephen M., "The Validity of an Arbitral Award Rendered by a Truncated Tribunal", Asia Pacific Law Review, 4(2), 1995.
  17. Seifi, Jamal, "The Legality of Truncated Arbitral Tribunals (Public and Private): An overview in the Wake of the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration", Journal of International Arbitration, 17(6), 2000.
  18. Szurski, Tadeusz, The Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, ICCA Congress Series No.9, 1998.
  19. Veeder, Van Vechten, Laws and Court Decisions in Common Law Countries and the UNCITRAL Model Law, ICCA Congress Series No.5, 1990.
  20. 魯山縣農村信用合作聯社訴陳東斌案, 河南省平頂山市中級人民法院(2019)豫04民特3號民事裁定書.
  21. 東營市陽光職業介紹有限公司訴王重彬案, 廣東省東營市中級人民法院(2016)魯05民特57號民事裁定書.
  22. 馬紹爾群島第一投資公司訴福建省馬尾造船股分有限公司,福建省船舶工業集團公司船舶建造的選擇權協議糾紛案, 福建省厦門海事法院(2006)厦海法認字第1號終審裁定書.
  23. 武漢超凡物流(鄂州)有限公司訴武漢市超凡物流有限公司案, 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院(2015)鄂武漢中仲監字第00159號民事裁定書.
  24. 安徽省渦陽縣建築安裝有限公司訴亳州市嘉林房地産開發有限公司案, 亳州市中級人民法院(2019)皖16民特6號民事裁定書.
  25. Agence Transcongolaise des Communications - Chemin de Fer Congo Ocean (ATC-CFCO) v. Compagnie Miniere de l'Ogooue Comilog SA, Cour d'Appel, Paris, 1 July 1997.
  26. British Metal Corporation, Ltd. v. Ludlow Bros., Ltd. (1938) 61 Ll.L.Rep. 351.
  27. Encyclopaedia Universalis S.A. v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 403 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2005).
  28. First Investment Corporation of the Marshall Islands V. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding Ltd. of the People's Republic of China, et al., 858 F.Supp. 2d. 658 (5th Cir. 2012).
  29. Ivan Milutinovic PIM v. Deutsche Babcock AG, ICC Court of Arbitration in Case No. 5017 (1987).
  30. Uiterwyk Corporation et al. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Final Award No. 501-381-1 (8 January 1991).