仲裁缺席审理规则的模式选择及展开

Mode Selection and Deployment of Arbitration Absentee Trial Rules

《仲裁法》等法规未规定仲裁的缺席审理规则,其有缺席判决主义和一造辩论主义两种选择。仲裁缺席审理规则的两种立法模式,在运行机理、审理方式、救济程序等方面不同。缺席判决主义背后蕴含完全义务,一造辩论主义背后隐藏狭义真实义务。其中,从程序模式、程序构成简便性等角度分析,一造辩论主义模式更适合我国仲裁程序。德国和日本仲裁法采一造辩论主义的立法模式,借鉴两种共通性的仲裁缺席审理规则,同时,从事实主张、证据提交和证据审核认定等方面就仲裁缺席审理规则的内容进行明确。

The Arbitration Law and other regulations do not stipulate the rules of absenteeism in arbitration. They have two choices:absenteeism and debate. The two legislative modes of arbitration default rules are different in terms of operational mechanism,trial mode,and relief procedures. Behind the absenteeism,there is a completeobligation,and behind the creation of debate,the narrow and true obligation is hidden. Among them,from the perspective of program mode and simplicity of program composition,a debate model is more suitable for China’s arbitration process. The German and Japanese arbitration laws adopt a legislative model of debating politics,drawing on two common rules for absentee arbitration,and at the same time,clarifying the content of arbitration trial rules from the aspects of factual claims,evidence submission and evidence review.