“选定的仲裁委员会”要件认定及解释新论

A new theory on the identification and interpretation of“the chosen arbitration commission”

作为《仲裁法》列明的仲裁协议生效要件,“选定的仲裁委员会”这一要件不仅间接否定了临时仲裁的合法性,而且在无法明确“选定的仲裁委员会”时,仲裁协议可能被认定无效。目前,我国法院对该要件的解释不够统一,缺乏包容性。合意是仲裁发生的基础,应当作为仲裁协议效力认定的逻辑起点。在此基础上,应当区分首要合意与次要合意。当事人约定将纠纷提交仲裁解决,而非诉诸法院,乃是首要合意。当事人就仲裁应当如何具体展开的特定事项达成的约定,则是次要合意。原则上,首要合意一旦明确,则争议须通过仲裁解决。次要合意不应当构成决定仲裁协议效力的必要条件。循此思路,在“选定的仲裁委员会”这一要件存在瑕疵的情况下,应从有效性原则出发,推断双方当事人的真实意图,并在必要情况下,赋予仲裁申请人选择在合理推定范围内的一家仲裁机构申请仲裁的单方面权利。

As an effective requirement of the arbitration agreements listed in the Arbitration Law,the requirement of“the chosen arbitration commission”not only indirectly denies the legitimacy of ad hoc arbitration,but may also render an arbitration agreement invalid if“the chosen arbitration commission”cannot be specified.At present,the interpretation of this requirement by our courts is not consistent enough and lacks flexibility.As the foundation of arbitration,consent should be regarded as the logical starting point for judging the validity of an arbitration agreement.On this basis,a distinction should be made between primary consent and secondary consent.The consent to submit a dispute to an arbitration rather than litigation is the primary consent for parties,while the consent as to how to conduct an arbitration on specific issues is the secondary consent for parties.In principle,once the primary consent is identified,the dispute must be resolved through arbitration.The secondary consent should not constitute a necessary condition for the validity of an arbitration agreement.Along this line,if a defect arises as to the requirement of“the chosen arbitration commission”,the court should infer the real intention of the two parties by employing the principle of validity,and confer on the arbitration applicant a unilateral right to choose an arbitration commission within a reasonable presumption if it is necessary.