紧急仲裁员裁判执行机制问题研究

将紧急仲裁员裁判认定为仲裁裁决具有较大的障碍，因而无法在仲裁裁决执行机制之内解决紧急仲裁员裁判的执行问题。从世界范围来看，是否执行紧急仲裁员裁判存在实质主义与形式主义两种论证思路。沿着这两种论证思路，产生了三种紧急仲裁员裁判的执行机制：分别是由“实质与影响说”中发展出来的美国执行机制、“契约性”强判定下的自我执行机制与“契约性”非强判定下的立法支持机制。前两种机制均存在不同程度的缺陷，立法支持则有助于克服“契约性”判定的难题，形成统一有效的执行机制。我国当前的立法框架下，紧急仲裁员裁判并无强制执行的可能，短期内应该采取自我执行机制，长远来看则应该修改立法，取消法院对仲裁临时措施的专有管辖权，并借鉴香港缓和式立法，直接规定紧急仲裁员裁判的可执行性。

There are some barriers to define judgments of emergencyarbitrators as arbitral awards. Therefore we cannot solve the enforcement problem within the existing arbitral-award enforcement mechanism. There are three modes of mechanisms for emergency arbitrator＇s decisions in the world, namely American mechanism originating from judicial practices symbolized as ＂substance and impact theory＂, self-enforcement mecha- nism under the strong contractual test and legislation-support mechanism under the weak contractual test. The formerly mentioned mechanisms have drawbacks in different degrees. Referring to legislation support, we can overcome the difficulty of contractual test and form an uniform and effective enforcement mechanism. For China, it＇s impossible for mandatory enforcement of the emergency arbitrator＇s desisons in current legal framework, so it relies on self-enforcement mechanism to effectuate the procedure of emergency arbitration in the short run. However, the court＇s exclusive jurisdiction for ordering interim measures should be a- bandoned in the future, and legislation should follow Hong Kong＇s pro- gressive mode and prescribe direct enforcement of emergency arbitrator＇s decisions.