UNCITRAL《国际商事仲裁示范法》中间措施适用范围,发布权归属模式、机制与我国仲裁法律的对比研究

Studies on the Comparison of UNCITRAL International Commercial Arbitration Interim Measures’ Application Sphere,Issues Power Adscription Style and Mechanism with the Rules of the China’s Arbitration

经过了法院职权主义到混合主义的转变后,2006年UNCITRAL通过的《示范法》在中间措施立法上,首先明确了概念,避免了以范围代替概念的立法模式,界定了适用的范围;在发布权归属上采取了法院和仲裁自由选择式,并采取诉前和诉中的发布时机,灵活多变,最大限度地保护了当事人的意思自治。而我国《仲裁法》虽然也认为中间措施是倾向于保护目的,但是内涵单调,只有一类,且与涉外立法又有所差别。我国采取了法院专属模式,环节拖沓,效率低下,关于发布时机的法律规定模糊,实际上是剥夺了当事人仲裁前保全中间措施的权利。出现上述差别的原因与我国仲裁法立法的背景和体制有关,如立法环境相对封闭、适逢WTO谈判的停滞期、体制僵化等。我国应当顺应国际仲裁趋势,采纳示范法关于中间措施的法律规定。

After the changing from the court’s authority doctrine to the mixtures doctrine,the legislation of interim easures UNCITRAL Model Law in 2006,firstly,defines the definitely concept of the interim,and avoids the style of legislation with the sphere to replace the definition,determines the four application style;adopts the third style of the court and arbitrate tribunal style in the issues power ascription and the issues time of the before sue and post sue,which to be free,changing to protect big the meaning rules of the parties.However,in the Arbitration Law of the PRC,although the legislation of the interim measures are considered as the proceeding measures with the aim to protect,it is monotonous in the sphere of the application,with the only style and its difference between the foreign legislation and domestic legislation,and adopt to the exclusive style of court with the long rink and lower efficiency,and is indistinct in the rule,which is to deprive the rights to adopt to the interim measures before the sue for the party.The reason for the distinction of the Model Law and China’s Arbitration Law,is related to the background of the legislation and mechanism,for example,the closed environment and the time of the WTO’s negotiation,the ossification mechanism,and China’s legislation shall follow the trends of the international arbitration to adopt the legislation of the interim measures by the Model Law.