| 摘要: |
| 关于仲裁临时保全措施的规范模式，衡诸比较法例可知，根据其审批主体的差异，可分为“法
院独占制”“仲裁庭单轨制”与“法院及仲裁庭双轨并行制”。现行中国仲裁法制，由于仅人民法院得以处
理相关临时措施的审批，显然采取的是由法院独占的规范模式。严格言之，不论是国内或是涉外仲裁案
件，仲裁机构并无审批保全措施的权限。然而，中国国内仲裁机构制定的仲裁规则，例如北京仲裁委员
会现行之《仲裁规则》，其实已经在“执行地于境外”的情形，做出规范上的尝试性突破，赋予仲裁庭审批
该类保全措施的权限，实践上亦已有境外法域执行由内地仲裁庭批给的保全措施。以此为契机，笔者认
为现行法关于仲裁保全措施的规定稍嫌过于法院本位主义，似可考虑调整为目前多数友善仲裁法例所
采取的“双轨并行制”，允许当事人根据其需求而向法院或仲裁庭提交申请。建制上，本文分别就审批保
全措施的管辖权分配及其执行，提出调整现行仲裁法及民事诉讼法相关规定的立法建议。 |
| 关键词: 临时措施 保全措施 法院本位主义 仲裁法改革 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Interim Measures in Chinese Commercial Arbitration and Court Parochialism: A Legislative Proposal |
|
Huang Kaishen
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| National arbitration laws on the issue of provisional measures vary from one jurisdiction to another. Some exclusively reserve the authority over making these measures to either local courts or arbitrators. Others allow both of them to grant provisional relief. The Chinese arbitration law, which only allows the court to issue the conservatory measure, is a regulative model, by definition, that excludes the authority of arbitrators to make any interim remedies. However, some Chinese institutional arbitration rules, like that of the BAC, have attempted to overcome this limitation by authorizing arbitrators to issue conservatory measures in foreign related cases. In light of this, I argue that a legislative reform that permits arbitrators, alongside national courts, to grant provisional relief is needed. Articles 28, 46, 62, and 68 of the Arbitration Law of the Peoples Republic of China, and Article 272 of the Civil Procedure Law, should be further modified respectively. |
| Key words: Interim Measure, Conservatory Measure, Court Parochialism, Arbitration Reform |
