通过分析近年来以公共政策为由撤销涉外仲裁裁决执行令的案件中可以看出,我国国内法治建设仍主要追求国际合作利益而谨慎适用公共政策抗辩。当前,涉外仲裁裁决中的公共政策认定已经出现新的发展,程序性公共政策被国际社会所普遍认同,公...通过分析近年来以公共政策为由撤销涉外仲裁裁决执行令的案件中可以看出,我国国内法治建设仍主要追求国际合作利益而谨慎适用公共政策抗辩。当前,涉外仲裁裁决中的公共政策认定已经出现新的发展,程序性公共政策被国际社会所普遍认同,公共政策与正当程序理由之间的适用关系也逐渐明晰,不过对于申请执行地法院的管辖权仍未能合理限制。基于种种变化,我国法院应当予以足够重视,对公共政策认定标准作出适时调整,重视程序性抗辩与主动审查的结合,在扩大对外开放和鼓励仲裁自治的同时灵活保护社会公共秩序与根本利益。Through the analysis of the cases of revoking the enforcement order of foreign arbitration awards on the grounds of public policy in recent years, it can be seen that the construction of domestic rule of law still mainly pursues the interests of international cooperation and prudently applies the public policy defense. At present, there have been new developments in the identification of public policy in foreign-related arbitration awards, and procedural public policy has been generally reco- gnized by the international community. The application relationship between public policy and due process reasons has gradually become clear, but the jurisdiction of the court where the application is applied for execution is still not reasonably restricted. Based on all kinds of changes, Chinese courts should pay enough attention to it, make timely adjustments to public policy identification standards, attach importance to the combination of procedural defense and proactive review, and flexibly protect social public order and fundamental interests while expanding the opening to the outside world and encouraging arbitration autonomy.展开更多
文摘通过分析近年来以公共政策为由撤销涉外仲裁裁决执行令的案件中可以看出,我国国内法治建设仍主要追求国际合作利益而谨慎适用公共政策抗辩。当前,涉外仲裁裁决中的公共政策认定已经出现新的发展,程序性公共政策被国际社会所普遍认同,公共政策与正当程序理由之间的适用关系也逐渐明晰,不过对于申请执行地法院的管辖权仍未能合理限制。基于种种变化,我国法院应当予以足够重视,对公共政策认定标准作出适时调整,重视程序性抗辩与主动审查的结合,在扩大对外开放和鼓励仲裁自治的同时灵活保护社会公共秩序与根本利益。Through the analysis of the cases of revoking the enforcement order of foreign arbitration awards on the grounds of public policy in recent years, it can be seen that the construction of domestic rule of law still mainly pursues the interests of international cooperation and prudently applies the public policy defense. At present, there have been new developments in the identification of public policy in foreign-related arbitration awards, and procedural public policy has been generally reco- gnized by the international community. The application relationship between public policy and due process reasons has gradually become clear, but the jurisdiction of the court where the application is applied for execution is still not reasonably restricted. Based on all kinds of changes, Chinese courts should pay enough attention to it, make timely adjustments to public policy identification standards, attach importance to the combination of procedural defense and proactive review, and flexibly protect social public order and fundamental interests while expanding the opening to the outside world and encouraging arbitration autonomy.
