Recognition and Enforcement of Online Arbitration Awards.docx

Recognition and Enforcement of Online Arbitration Awards.docx

《Recognition and Enforcement of Online Arbitration Awards.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Recognition and Enforcement of Online Arbitration Awards.docx（6页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

RecognitionandEnforcementofOnlineArbitrationAwards

涉外法律实践论文

中文题目：

国际网上仲裁的承认与执行

英文题目：

RecognitionandEnforcementofOnlineArbitralAwards

ABSTRACT

Asanewformofalternativedisputeresolution,onlinearbitrationisdevelopingquickly,whereasmultiplerelevantlegalissuesariseaswell.ThispresentresearchsummarizesthelegalissuesrelatedtotherecognitionandenforcementofonlinearbitrationandoffersseveralproposalsinlightoftheconditionsofChinaandtheadvancedinternationalexperience.

Keywords:

onlinearbitration;recognitionandenforcement

中文摘要

作为一种新兴的替代争议解决方案，网上仲裁处于迅猛发展之中，但同时也出现一些相关的法律争议。

本文总结了网上仲裁承认与执行的相关法律争议，参考中国实际国情和先进国际经验，提出了相应的建议。

关键词：

网上仲裁；承认与执行

1.INTRODUCTION

OnlinearbitrationutilizestheInternettofacilitatetheprocessofarbitration,butthecharacteristicsoftheInternetalsobringnewproblemswithwhichtraditionalarbitrationisneverconfronted.Amongthem,twotypicalproblems——recognitionandenforcement——areofconsiderablesignificance,becausebothofthemarecloselyassociatedwiththevalidityofarbitrationandwiththeinterestsofparties.ThispresentstudycombinesthetheoriesoftraditionalarbitrationandthecharacteristicsofonlinearbitrationsoastoanalyzetheproblemsregardingtherecognitionandenforcementofarbitrationintheInternetenvironment.Finally,theessaywilllistsomesolutionstothesaidproblems.

2.THERECOGNITIONANDENFORCEMENTOFTRADITIONALARBITRATIONANDITSLIMITATION

Withthedevelopmentofinternationaltrade,arbitrationhasbecomeaprevalentmethodtoresolveinternationalcommercialissues.Mostcountrieshavelawstoassuretherecognitionandenforcementofarbitralawards.Inthecasethatobligorsfailtoperformawards,obligeesareempoweredtoapplytothecourtforenforcement.Thoughtheremaybeconflictsbetweentheawardsmadebyaforeigninstitutionandthedomesticlawsofaspecificcountry,ConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards（1958）（NewYorkConvention）standsasanefficientinternationalguidancetoresolvethem.Itprovidestheconditionsunderwhichacourtcanannuland/orrefusetoenforceaforeignaward.PursuanttoNewYorkConventionArticle5

（1）,acourtcanrefusetoenforceanarbitralawardifitholdsthatincompliancewithitsdomesticlaws,theissuecannotberesolvedbymeansofarbitrationorthattheawardconflictswithitsdomesticpublicpolicies.Hence,theinternationalrecognitionandenforcementoftraditionalarbitrationisquitethoroughandsystematic.

However,comparedwithonlinearbitration,traditionalarbitrationalsohaslimitations:

Tobeginwith,theprocessoftraditionalarbitrationisslow,mainlyonaccountofthetime-consumingtransportationacrosstheworld.

Besides,traditionalarbitrationiscostly.Therentofarbitrationroom,thepaymenttoarbitratorsandinvitedprofessionals,andtransportationcosttogetherconstituteagreatexpenditure.

Onlinearbitrationbreaksthepreviousmentionedlimitationsandthuswinsgrowingpervasiveness.

3.PROBLEMSINREGARDTOTHERECOGNITIONANDENFORCEMENTOFONLINEARBITRATION

OnlinearbitrationreferstothearbitrationconductedontheInternet.Itusuallyadoptstoolssuchase-mails,chatrooms,teleconferencebynetworkorvideoconference,anddigitalsignatureandpublicnotarization（HEXuhong2006:

134）.Itencounterstwocontroversiallegalissues:

thevalidityofarbitralagreementsandthedeterminationofnationality.

3.1THEVALIDITYOFARBITRALAGREEMENTS

Mostcountriesrequirearbitralagreementstobeinwrittenform,otherwisethevalidityofthoseagreementsarenegativelyaffectedandcourtsarelikelynottosupportthem.Forinstance,Article16oftheArbitrationLawofthePeople'sRepublicofChinarequires:

“Anarbitrationagreementshallincludethearbitrationclausesprovidedinthecontractandanyotherwrittenformofagreementconcludedbeforeorafterthedisputesprovidingforsubmissiontoarbitration.”SimilarrequirementcanalsobefoundinArticle2oftheNewYorkConvention.Nonetheless,onlinearbitralagreementsarealwaysinelectricalformratherthanwrittenform,sotherecognitionofelectronicformsremainsdisputed.

Additionally,foranarbitralagreementtobevalid,signaturesofallthepartiesinvolvedarerequired.Nevertheless,partiescannotusepenstosignanonlinearbitralagreement.Hence,peopleadoptelectronicsignature（ordigitalsignature）tosignthem.PursuanttoArticle2ofUnitedNationsCommissiononInternationalTradeLaw（UNCITRAL）ModelLawonElectronicSignatures,theterm“electronicsignature”meansdatainelectronicformin,affixedtoorlogicallyassociatedwith,adatamessage,whichmaybeusedtoidentifythesignatoryinrelationtothedatamessageandtoindicatethesignatory’sapprovaloftheinformationcontainedinthedatamessage.Essentially,electronicsignatureisakindofencryptedinformationratherthanarealnamesuchasJonBlackorMarrySmithwrittenbypeople,soelectronicsignaturecannotbeidentifiedbycontrastingdifferentchirography.Hence,howtoensurethatsuchencryptedinformationisnotembezzledbyothersandhowtoassureitsreliabilityandvaliditydeservediscussion.

3.2THEIDENTIFICATIONOFTHEPLACEOFARBITRATIONINONLINEARBITRATION

Theidentificationoftheplaceofarbitrationiscloselyrelatedtotheinterestsofallpartiesinvolved,andlawsregardingitmakeagreatdifferencetotherecognitionandenforcementofarbitralawards.Aspreviouslymentioned,eveninternationalconventionslikeNewYorkConventionprovidesituationsinwhichcourtsmayrefusetoenforcearbitralawardswherearbitrationagreementsconflictwithdomesticregulationsorpolicies.Intheinternationalpractice,“domesticlawsapplytoforeignarbitralprocedure”principlehasbeenwidelyacknowledged（HEXuhong2006:

135）.Sincedomesticlawsofdifferentstatesvarytoaconsiderableextent,thedeterminationoftheseatofarbitrationisofexceedingimportance.Furthermore,unliketraditionalarbitrationwhichhasaconcreteplacetoconductthearbitralprocedure,onlinearbitrationisconductedontheInternet,whichisvirtualandhasnoboundaries.Thisdistinctionbringsmoredifficultiestothedeterminationoftheplaceofonlinearbitration.

4.PROPOSALSTOSOLVETHEPROBLEMSPERTAININGTOTHERECOGNITIONANDENFORCEMENTOFONLINEARBITRATION

Asprovedbymodernscience,motioniseternalandabsolute.Everythingischangingandsocialregulations,includingarbitrallaws,needtobeupdatedaswell.Withanemphasisonthereformofexistingregulations,thefollowingcontentdealswiththepreviousmentionedproblemsconcerningtherecognitionandenforcementofonlinearbitration.

4.1THEVALIDITYOFARBITRALAGREEMENTS

Withrespecttothewrittenformissue,UNCITRALofferstworesolutions:

1.Expandthelegalexplanationof“writtenform”andincludeelectronicdatainterchange（EDI）messagesinit,giventhatEDImessagesisessentiallyfunctionalequivalenttotraditionalwrittenform;2.UtilizethecommunicationagreementtostipulatethatEDImessagesfallintothedefinitionof“writtenform”（MAQian2009:

109）.Thefirstresolutionismorethanthesecondone,forlawsofsomecountriesdonotacceptthestipulationofthelatterinthecommunicationagreement.

Asforthesignatureissue,someinternationalorganizationssuchasUNCITRALandInternationalChamberofCommerce（ICC）proposethat1.statesabolishregulationsthatrequirewrittensignatureorexpandthelegaldefinitionofsignaturetoincludeelectronicsignature;2.statesenactlawstopermitelectronictechnologiessuchaselectronicsignaturetoverifyelectronicdocuments;and/or3.partiestocommunicationagreementsmakelaydownclausesthatstipulatethemethodsandproceduresofelectronicverification.Onaccountofthesimilarreasonsmentionedinthepreviousparagraph,thisessayholdsthatthefirsttworesolutionsaremorereliableandsustainable.Infact,thedomesticlawsofmanycountriesandamultitudeofinternationalconventionshaveexpandedtheinterpretationofsignature（e.g.UniformCommercialCode（2007）Articles5to107,UNCITRALModelLawonElectronicCommerce（1996）Article7andUnitedNationsConventionontheCarriageofGoodsbySea（1978）Article14Paragraph3）ordirectlystipulatedthevalidityofelectronicsignature（e.g.TheLawofthePeople'sRepublicofChinaonElectronicSignature（2004）,DigitalSignatureActofMalaysia（1997）andElectronicTransactionsActofAustralia（1999））.

4.2THEIDENTIFICATIONOFTHEPLACEOFARBITRATIONINONLINEARBITRATION

Thereareseveraltheoriestoresolvethisissue（ZHANGXiaojian2006:

3-4）:

1.arbitrator’splacetheoryclaimsthatthegeographicallocationofarbitratororchiefarbitratorshouldbedeemedtheplaceofonlinearbitration;2.server’splacetheorystatesthatphysicallocationoftheserverthatisutilizedbyonlinearbitrationshouldberegardedastheplaceofonlinearbitration;and3.placeofthecontrollerorownerofthewebsitetheorybelievesthattheplaceoftheownerorthecontrollerofthewebsitethatprovidesarbitrationserviceshouldbeconsideredastheplaceofonlinearbitration.Nevertheless,allofthethreetheorieshavesomedefects.Theplaceofarbitratorsandserversisdifficulttolocateandtheusers’placeofawebsitemaybeinconsistentwithowner’splaceorcontroller’splace.Hence,somescholarsproposedenationalizationtheory（LIHu2005:

139）.

Thedenationalizationtheoryarisesfromthetheoryofsovereignimmunity,whichoriginatedfrominternationalarbitrationwhereastateisaparty.Thedenationalizationtheorycontendsthatinternational