兩岸非機構仲裁制度變革研究

Reform of Ad Hoc Arbitration Systems Across the Strait

今日之商貿活動中，仲裁已係廣泛被接受之訴訟外紛爭解決機制。在一九五八年紐約公約之基礎上，仲裁亦成為了許多跨境爭端當事人之首選。就仲裁本質而言，仲裁需要當事人間達成某種形式之協議或合作，始能展開。當事人間之仲裁協議，得以合意約定者，即包括是否將爭端提交仲裁機構，由與仲裁機構合作之仲裁庭，協助爭端之解決；或約定將爭端提交專案仲裁庭（Ad Hoc Tribunal），由當事人自行監督仲裁程序之進行。因此，依傳統二分法，仲裁又被分為機構仲裁與非機構仲裁兩類。惟依國際仲裁慣例，上述二分法對於仲裁之效力，其實並無實質之差別，不論當事人之選擇係機構仲裁或非機構仲裁，於法律效力上應無差異。然而，觀兩岸之仲裁立法與司法實務，則會發現兩岸就是否應承認非機構仲裁皆有所爭議。本文謹先從機構仲裁與非機構仲裁之區別開始，析述兩者之優劣異同；進而從仲裁發展之歷史脈絡與仲裁之法律性質，闡明本文對於非機構仲裁之看法；最後比較兩岸法制之觀點，探究近年之變化並提出建議。

In modern trade, arbitration serves as one of widely accepted alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. The operation of 1958 New York Convention suffices arbitration the top choice for parties involving with cross-border commercial controversies. In essence, as arbitration requires agreement by and between the disputed parties, the arbitration can be categorized as institutional arbitration or non-institutional one. For institutional arbitration, the disputed parties agree to submit their disputes to the arbitral institution, while the non-institutional arbitration refers to the case in the event disputed parties agree to form an ad hoc tribunal. However, as the practice shown, such dichotomy has no substantial difference in terms of its respective effectiveness.
This paper stands on the point that with regards legislation and the judicial practices, it proves that arbitrational cases have always disputed on whether non-institutional arbitration shall be (or would be) effectively recognized. To solve said problem, this article starts with the difference of institutional versus non-institutional arbitration, and analyze the pros and cons of these two. Thereafter, this paper explores the historical contexts of the institutional development of arbitration for better understanding of the legal nature of arbitration, and clarifying the effectiveness of the non-institutional arbitration. In the last part, this paper concludes with the comparison of cross-strait arbitration legal systems, in addition to updating related recent reformation as and for further recommendation.