論法律仲裁與衡平仲裁──兼提出修法之建議

A study on Legal Arbitration and Equitable Arbitration: And Proposing Amendments to the Law

本於「訴訟經濟原則」與「公平合理原則」，訴訟外糾紛解決之機制（Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR）是解決爭議最好之途徑，而仲裁判斷之依據，除了當事人合約之依據外，不外依據法律仲裁與衡平仲裁。
法律仲裁（arbitration by law）所稱「法律」之範圍十分廣泛，除憲法第170條規定形式上意義之法律外，尚包括大法官解釋、法規命令、職權命令，行政規則、自治條例、各級法院判例、條約、公約、協定等。
另衡平仲裁（arbitration by equity）係指於當事人明示合意授權下，仲裁庭得適用「衡平原則」（ex aequo et bono）或以amiable compositeurs地位（友誼仲裁）為判斷之仲裁，衡平仲裁並非一定須依據國家法律規定，而是依據國際商業或工程慣例等作為裁量判斷；但我國司法實務（最高法院九十三年台上字第一一三五號等判決）卻認為衡平仲裁為法律仲裁之補充性、例外性之制度，且必須『嚴格適用法律規則後』，於當事人間將產生不公平結果，始得適用之，對衡平仲裁似存有不信任感與排斥的態度，嚴重限縮仲裁法第31條衡平仲裁之適用，尤其不利於國際仲裁之發展。
本文認為基於尊重當事人之程序與實體法自主選擇權，上揭實務見解值得商榷，致使本條文形同虛設，及影響當事人對仲裁程序適用之意願，本文爰提出不同見解，並嘗試研擬修法之建議，以為解決之方案。

Based on the“Principle of Litigation Economy”and the“Principle of Fairness and Reasonableness”, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADR) is the best way to resolve disputes, and the basis for arbitration judgment includes legal arbitration and equitable arbitration in addition to the basis of the parties’contract.
The scope of the“law”referred to as arbitration by law is very extensive, and in addition to the laws of the formal meaning stipulated in article 170 of the Constitution, it also includes interpretations by the grand justice, decrees of laws, orders of authority, administrative rules, autonomous regulations, precedents of courts at all levels, treaties, conventions, agreements, etc.
Arbitration by equity means that the arbitral tribunal may apply the“ex aequo et bono”or the status of a amiable compositeurs (friendship arbitration) under the express consent of the parties, and the equitable arbitration is not necessarily based on national law, but according to international commercial or engineering practices, etc., as a discretionary judgment; However, Taiwan’s judicial practice (Supreme Court Judgment No. 1135, in 2004) holds that equitable arbitration is a complementary and exceptional system of legal arbitration, and it must be‘strictly applied to the rules of law’, which will produce unfair results among the parties before it can be applied, and there seems to be a sense of distrust and exclusion towards equitable arbitration, which seriously limits the application of equitable arbitration in article 31 of the Arbitration Law, that also is particularly detrimental to the development of international arbitration.
This article argues that based on respect for the parties’procedural and substantive law autonomy, the Supreme Court above-mentioned practical views is debatable, in order to avoid making this provision useless and affecting the parties’willingness to apply the arbitration procedure, this article puts forward different views and attempts to propose amendments to the law as a solution.