仲裁協議對第三人之效力──以國際商務仲裁為中心

The Effect of Arbitration Agreements on Third Parties: A Focus on International Commercial Arbitration

林芳維(Fang-Wei Lin)

指導教授 ： 王文宇

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201704079

摘要

在跨國商業活動發展蓬勃之今日，國際商務仲裁已成為跨國商務紛爭最常見之紛爭解決方式，當事人間須訂有仲裁協議始得將紛爭提付仲裁，原則上僅有仲裁協議之當事人始受仲裁協議拘束。然而，如今商業活動之發展日益龐雜，其中不乏許多複雜交易型態，其牽扯之利害關係人眾多，當紛爭發生時，涉及紛爭之人可能包含多方利害關係人，惟其中並非所有人之間皆有簽訂仲裁協議，此時若有涉及當事人以外之第三人與契約紛爭密切相關之請求，若仍持傳統觀點，認為只有在仲裁協議上簽字之當事人始受仲裁協議拘束，則在所有利害關係人間涉及之同一或相牽連背景事實之紛爭勢必不能在同一仲裁程序中解決，其他未簽字之利害關係人若在其他內國法院或仲裁庭提起訴訟或仲裁，更有不同裁判或仲裁判斷可能發生歧異之問題。
就此問題，國際商務仲裁實務大多認為判斷仲裁合意並不以在仲裁協議上簽字為必要，若能以其他方式證明第三人與當事人間有仲裁合意，則第三人亦應受仲裁協議拘束。實務上已發展出若干理論基礎，在特定情形下認為仲裁庭可將管轄權及於第三人。各種理論基礎可大分為兩類，第一類係依各國內國法之傳統契約法規定，在第三人符合契約法預設之法律關係（如債權讓與、第三人利益契約等）時，依契約法規定解釋仲裁協議對第三人之效力；第二類係在傳統契約法之外發展出之各種如仲裁禁反言原則及公司集團原則等非簽字方理論（non-signatories），以特定事實型態推知仲裁合意。
然而，經本文研究發現，國際仲裁實務上仲裁庭為解決紛爭之需求有逐漸忽略仲裁合意之趨勢，此係因長久以來仲裁制度奠基之仲裁合意基礎已不足以處理所有今日涉及多方關係人之複雜商業紛爭，在某程度上為不得不然之結果。
本文認為現行國際仲裁實務適用非簽字方理論處理之各種案例中，大多數案例原則上仍應回歸適用傳統契約法之理論。在未能以傳統契約法處理，但卻有紛爭一同解決之需求時，有學者認為此時應例外顛覆仲裁程序之仲裁合意基礎，在第三人之相關請求屬契約中之紛爭不可分割之整體時，應斟酌各項因素，考慮將第三人納入仲裁程序。此見解直接挑戰傳統上仲裁合意為仲裁制度之基礎之見解，雖未必為各國法院接受，其直指問題核心，回到仲裁協議之紛爭解決功能，不失為未來國際商務仲裁實務可參考之方向。
就我國實務對第三人議題之見解，其尚無逸脫仲裁合意之基礎，主要仍以傳統契約法為依據，惟其在適用國內民法解釋仲裁協議之效力是否及於第三人時，應注意仲裁協議之性質有別於其他契約中約定之實體法權利義務，在仲裁合意之解釋上，其思維應與主契約之權利義務內容有所不同，不宜直接套用規範實體權利義務之民法條文，將仲裁合意之判斷併入實體權利義務之抗辯權中，完全與主契約之效力一概而論。

關鍵字

國際商務仲裁 ； 第三人 ； 非簽字方理論 ； 仲裁合意 ； 仲裁協議 ； 仲裁程序 ； 管轄權擴張 ； 公司集團原則 ； 仲裁禁反言原則 ； 超國界法規

並列摘要

Nowadays international commercial arbitration is the most widely used mechanism in addressing international commercial disputes. The cornerstone of arbitration rests on consent. In principle, only the “parties” who sign the arbitration agreement are bound to arbitrate. However, the development of international trade has made modern international commercial transactions become more and more complex, often involving several multinational parties or groups. Most of the time not all of them have signed the arbitration agreement. If disputes concerning other non-signatories (third parties) arise, in theory only the parties to the arbitration agreement can participate in the arbitration proceedings. This leaves other parties in interest outside the scope of arbitration, posing a risk of contradictory judgments if they seek to initiate court or arbitral proceedings in other places.
To address this issue, the prevailing view in practice is that consent to arbitrate need not be evidenced in writing. As long as the consent of non-signatories and signatories can be proved, non-signatories can be bound by or enjoy the benefit of the arbitration agreement. Several legal bases has been developed to address the non-signatory issues. They are mainly based on traditional contract law theories and other non-signatory theories which infer consent from specific fact patterns.
As this thesis shows, due to the need to resolve complex disputes, the fact patterns employed by arbitral tribunals in non-signatory theories in fact compromise the requirement of consent in arbitration. This phenomenon to some extent reveals that the sophistication of modern international trade has outgrown the traditional consensual nature of arbitration.
The author maintains that in most cases where non-signatory theories are applied, the consensual nature of arbitration should still be respected, since most of the cases can be addressed by traditional contract law theories. If there is still cases traditional contract law theories fail to cover, some scholar suggest if the third party claim raised is an integral part of the main dispute underlying the contract containing an arbitration clause, the third party may be joined into the arbitration under certain circumstances. This opinion presents a fundamental challenge to the universally recognized consensual nature of arbitration. It may not be accepted by most jurisdictions for now, but it provides an insightful resolution to the third party issue. It remains to be seen whether this opinion will be accepted in the future.
As for Taiwanese arbitration practice, most court judgements published show that the court still respect the consensual nature of arbitration. The arbitral tribunals and courts tend to apply traditional contract law theories to extend their jurisdiction to non-signatories (third parties). However, the author suggests that the tribunals and courts should distinguish arbitration clauses from other clauses in the main contract when applying the default rules in the civil law to interpret the arbitration clause. In certain circumstances, arbitration clauses are similar to personal covenants that cannot be interpreted to bind/ transfer to third parties.

並列關鍵字

international commercial arbitration ； extension of arbitration agreement ； third party ； non-signatory theories ； consent ； group of companies doctrine ； arbitral estoppel

參考文獻

陳俊元，再論我國保險人請求權代位之性質，政大法學評論第90期，2006年4月，頁229-300。

臺灣高等法院高雄分院105年度重抗字第40號民事裁定。

最高法院64年度台抗字239號裁定。

最高法院87年度台抗字第630號裁定。

最高法院94年度台抗字第993號裁定。