跨国破产的可仲裁性问题研究

一直以来，世界各国破产法旨在对破产申请人债务清偿顺序作出规制的同时，还关乎对破产公司的消灭与社会公共利益的救济。①由此，在传统的破产法中，破产争议向来不具有可仲裁性。然而，随着国际商事仲裁的发展和跨国破产争议的频发，破产问题的可仲裁性愈发值得学界反思和探讨。当下，国际商事仲裁与跨国破产程序之间的冲突主要表现在两个方面：其一，在破产程序开始前，若所有利益相关方均同意并自愿签订了破产仲裁条款，约定将与破产财产相关的争议交付仲裁机构审理，那么此时该仲裁条款是否具有可执行性；其二，在仲裁程序进行中，若一方当事入宣告破产，那么此时仲裁程序与跨国破产程序之间的冲突该如何协调。②本文将从上述两方面着手，研究造成国际商事仲裁与跨国破产程序之间冲突的诸多因素，进而对此冲突的解决提出建议，即以美国当下的立法、司法实践为参考，在界定不同类型的跨国破产争议的同时，建立不同的解决机制。

All the time, the purpose of bankruptcy law in different countries is not limited to the debt-repayment, it does matter the elimination of corporations and the rescue of public welfare. ①This is one basic reason why bankruptcy disputes are not subject to commercial arbitration in traditional bankruptcy law. However, with the recent development of international commercial arbitration and the frequent emergence of transnational bankruptcy disputes, it is time to reconsider the arbitrability of international commercial disputes arising out of transnational bankruptcy. Currently, the conflicts between international commercial arbitration and transnational bankruptcy proceedings are mainly reflected in two aspects. One is that if all the parties involved contracted a bankruptcy arbitration agreement before entering into bankruptcy proceedings, whether such arbitration agreement is enforceable when necessary. The other is that during the arbitral proceeding, if one party files the bankruptcy claim, then how to solve the conflicts between international commercial arbitral proceedings and transnational bankruptcy proceedings. ② This essay is going to analyze the underlying factors contributing to the conflicts between international commercial arbitration and transnational bankruptcy proceedings from these two aspects above, and then put forward suggestions that distinction among different types of transnational bankruptcy disputes should be made, as the current legislative and judicial practice in the United States.