無涉外因素爭議的域外仲裁問題

隨著我國對外開放和市場經濟的進一步深入，實踐中衍生出無涉外因素的國內爭議提交域外仲裁這類新型案件。從學理上，判斷涉外因素的主流標準“法律關係三要素說”存在簡單僵化的弊端；從立法上，法律規定演變的過程中新增了“兜底條款”，這意味著我國從規範上預設到了非典型涉外因素案件的出現。具體到涉外因素在仲裁中的認定，我國現有的仲裁法體系沒有明確禁止無涉外因素的仲裁案件提交域外仲裁，然而此前的司法實踐和裁判思路卻傾向於否定此類仲裁的有效性。我國司法實踐對於無涉外因素爭議提交域外仲裁的態度，以2015年為重要分水嶺，前後顯現出較大的轉變，最終在2015年底的上海黃金置地案中打破了長期以來對涉外因素認定的禁錮，對非典型涉外因素的識別實現重大突破。從法律與經濟發展互動的角度觀察，“一帶一路”和自貿區建設的大經濟環境需要中國仲裁制度的進一步開放，而其中涉外因素識別的突破對此意義重大。

With the deepening of China's reform and opening up, cases where Chinese domestic disputes without foreign- related elements submitting for arbitration outside Mainland China have been emerging. On the theoretical side, the mainstream academic viewpoint in the field, i.e., the identification test on basis of three essentials of the civil legal relationship, has drawbacks of over-simplicity and rigidity. On the regulatory side, acatch-all clause(back-up provision) is recently added, indicating that the legislators have foreseen atypical types of foreign- related cases. China's current regulatory framework does not explicitly prohibit disputes without foreign-relatede lements from arbitrating outside Mainland China. However, past judicial interpretations and policies tend to negate the validity of such arbitration agreements. After a systematic study of recent judicial cases where arbitration agreements without foreign-related elements provided for arbitration outside Mainland China, the paper reveals the past-decade jurisprudential development in China and its critical change these years.