透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.229.50.161
  • 學位論文

論仲裁協議效力之主觀範圍

Determining the Subjective Scope of Arbitration Agreement

指導教授 : 陳瑋佑

摘要


仲裁作為商業上主流的訴訟外紛爭解決機制,係以當事人合意締結之仲裁協議為基礎,並原則上只對當事人生效,故僅有當事人得主張或受仲裁協議拘束。由於仲裁協議須以一定書面方式作成,在過去嚴格的書面方式要求下,多以實際簽署者為仲裁協議當事人,惟此並不符合交易關係複雜之現代商業實務需求,因此,各立法例無不放寬仲裁協議之方式要件,以擴大當事人之認定範圍。更甚於此,為充分發揮仲裁解決紛爭之功能,晚近各國學說、實務見解不乏以實體法理論為基礎,使仲裁協議效力及於第三人,而發展出所謂仲裁協議之「第三人效力」問題。 依循上述國際趨勢,我國仲裁法同樣放寬了仲裁協議之書面方式,但仍存在若干問題,如:仲裁法第1條第4項「其他類似之通訊方法」之解釋、引置條款之容許,以及默示同意之容許及認定標準等,導致當事人之認定不易。關於仲裁協議之第三人效力問題,我國學說、實務同樣以實體法理論為基礎,肯定仲裁協議效力主觀範圍之擴張,惟於個別實體法理論之解釋適用上,仍不無疑問。 基此,本文先探討我國仲裁法之書面方式,並於肯認單方書面方式的前提下,認為仲裁協議當事人包含簽署者、被代理的本人及默示同意人。關於仲裁協議之第三人效力問題,本文分析了常見的實體法理論基礎,認為向來見解未跳脫合意原則,當事人與第三人間仍具仲裁合意,故無區分當事人及第三人之必要。此外,本文雖一方面肯認實體法理論基礎之重要性,認為應善用默示同意之解釋,認定仲裁協議當事人;另一方面,則因合意不容易認定,且仲裁協議本質為訴訟契約,故本文試圖以程序法上考量為基礎,突破合意原則之限制,使第三人受仲裁協議效力所及。就此,本文以擴張仲裁判斷既判力之主觀範圍為基礎,並於權衡當事人間之利益後認為,為避免平行程序、歧異裁判之風險,貫徹當事人利用仲裁解決紛爭之意思及利益,以及統一解決紛爭、訴訟經濟等考量,應使有合一確定必要之類似必要共同訴訟人受仲裁協議效力所及;仲裁庭亦應適時類推適用民事訴訟法上主觀合併、職權通知等規定,並適度調整仲裁之審理程序,以落實第三人之訴訟權以及程序利益之保障。

並列摘要


Arbitration, as a prevailing alternative dispute resolution in commercial disputes, is based on the arbitration agreement concluded under the mutual intention of both parties. In principle, the arbitration agreement can only bind and be invoked by the parties to it. In the past, under the strict form requirement (“in written”), mostly only signatories could become the party to the arbitration agreement. However, this no longer meets the needs of modern commercial practices which involved complicated transactional relationships. As a result, most jurisdictions have loosened the form requirement in order to broaden the scope of parties to the arbitration agreement. Moreover, to fully utilize the function of dispute resolution of arbitration, recent scholars and practitioners from around the globe have based on the substantive legal theory to extend the binding effect of arbitration agreement to third parties. Following the above-mentioned international trend, the Arbitration Law of R.O.C. also loosened the “in written” requirement of arbitration agreement. However, this results in further problems to be resolved, such as: the explanation of “other similar method of communication” of article 1 paragraph 4 of the Arbitration Law, the permissibility of incorporation by reference, as well as the permissibility and the determination of implied consent, which make the determination of parties to the arbitration agreement more challenging. As to extending the binding effect of arbitration agreement to third parties, scholars and practitioners in Taiwan have also endorsed and based on the substantive legal theory to expand the subject scope of arbitration agreement. However, several problems with respect to the application of specific substantive legal relationship remain unsolved. This article first discusses the “in written” requirement of the Arbitration Law of R.O.C., and on the premise of acknowledging the unilateral “in-written” requirement, claims that the scope of parties to an arbitration agreement includes the signatory, the principal of agency, and the one who has implied consented to. As to the extension of the binding effect to third parties, this article analyzes several common substantive legal theories, and comes to the conclusion that current theory of extension still conforms to the consent requirement, and that the distinction of parties and third parties, under substantive legal theory, is unnecessary. This article, on one hand, acknowledges the importance of utilizing substantive legal theory and the notion of implied consent to properly determine parties to arbitration agreement; on the other hand, by taking the difficulties of determining consent and the essence of arbitration agreement as a procedural contract into consideration, this article attempts to extend the binding effect of arbitration agreement, regardless of the consent requirement, on the basis of procedural considerations. In conclusion, based on the theory of the expansion of res judicata of arbitral awards, and by weighing the pros and cons of both parties and third parties, this article claims that in order to avoid the risk of parallel procedures and diverging judgements, to carry out the parties’ intention and interest of using arbitration as dispute resolution, and to fulfill the requirement of unified dispute resolution and the judicial economy, extending the binding effect of arbitration to third parties who are bound by the res judicata of arbitral awards are necessary. Arbitration tribunals should apply relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure by analogy and make appropriate adjustments of procedures to secure the right and interest of third parties.

參考文獻


參考文獻
一、中文文獻
王志誠(2012),〈仲裁判斷之既判力、執行力及爭點效──我國司法實務見解之發展動向及分析〉,《仲裁季刊》,96期,頁104-125。
王志誠、李書孝、彭惠筠、黃文昭、李宗哲、許苑(2020),《企業併購法實戰守則》,二版,新學林。
王欽彥(2009),〈法定仲裁與訴訟權保障:政府採購法第八五條之一「強制仲裁」規定之違憲性審查〉,《東海大學法學研究》,30期,頁199-236。

延伸閱讀