| 摘要: | 仲裁係根據當事人約定，將當事人間之爭議交由仲裁人作出公正判斷之程序。仲裁作成之後，依原商務仲裁條例第二十三條(現仲裁法第四十條)的規定，列有計十二款得提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴的情形，由我國法院近十年內所為的判決中，可以歸納出三個最具爭議或矛盾的議題：一、前置程序與最後決定權的問題；二、仲裁判斷是否須附理由的問題；三、仲裁是否為法律仲裁及衡平仲裁概念之澄清的問題，商務仲裁條例已於民國八十七年六月二十四日修正公布並更名為仲裁法，然本文為文時，尚未有依據新法所為之判例或判決，故本文仍以舊法為經，輔以目前工程仲裁中最具爭議性的「前置程序」問題為緯，來探究適用原條例中所衍生的問題，至於其他的爭議問題，容另文再加以探討。 實務上，有於仲裁協議中約定，在將爭議提交仲裁前須經一「前直程序」。未經此前置程序，法院通常認為當事人即得對他方提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴。最高法院歷來判決皆首肯此一概念。將最高法院所作之判決作分類後可知：預立此前置程序之一方當事人，皆為政府機關；不免使人聯想，此現象是否有權力濫用之弊；且當事人在約定前置程序時，多對其內容恣意約定，缺乏一定的標準，造成名詞與概念不一致的情形，因而使其內涵無法精確掌握。依現行實務就前置程序實踐的情況，本文試將前置程序分為四種類型，以分析其概念，並就可能為仲裁前置程序規定起源之FID IC條款加以比較其效力之異同；倘未踐行此程序，在FIDIC條款中及在我國實務上，其效力各為如何？仲裁條款之效力是否應受當事人自主原則無限制之支配？有無定型化契約規範之適用？應否服膺程序正義？上述諸問題，皆嘗試於本文中闡述之。 另外，前置程序外觀上的最大功能在於簡化程序，但是實質上，迅速原本即為仲裁的特色之一。倘承認仲裁，就無須再承認前置程序，否則反而會延緩整個程序的進行。前置程序在制度層面上，應歸屬於仲裁程序之要件，而非屬於仲裁程序的一部分，兩者之意義 實應有所區別，本文之立場認為前置程序為任意要件，踐行與否，一任當事人之自由，不得作為撤銷仲裁判斷之事由，苟非如此，前置程序之存在，則失其正面之意義。
Arbitration is a procedure that will commence pursuant to the parties' agreement to deliver their disputes to an arbitrator or arbitrator; in turn, who will then render a fair decision thereof. After an arbitral decision is made, there exist twelve situations that any of the parties may bring an action to set aside the arbitral award in accordance with article 23 of the Commercial Arbitration Statute of Taiwan (currently under article 40 of the new Arbitration Law) . Summarizing the cases decided by the Taiwan's Supreme Court during the past decade, we can find out three most controversial or even self conflicting issue: 1.the problem related to the preliminary requirement proceedings and the right to render final decision; 2.the question whether an arbitral judgment should append reasons; and 3.the issue whether an arbitration is an " arbitrage de droit " or " amiable compositeur." On June 24, 1998, the above Commercial Arbitration Statute has been amended and modified as the Arbitration Law. At the time this article is finalized, there was no reported decision or precedent made available under the new Arbitration Law. As a result, the discussions herein will be emphasized upon the Commercial Arbitration Statute and also centered on the most controversial problem of preliminary proceedings in the construction project arbitration. The rest of the foregoing issues will have to be addressed in another paper. In practice, the disputing parties may agree that certain preliminary proceedings be brought before their disputes can be submitted to arbitration. Without the commencement of such preliminary proceedings, the Taiwan courts often consider such violation as a ground for the other party to bring an action to set aside the rendered arbitral award 1 which has been affirmed be the Taiwan Supreme Court in these years. Categorizing said Supreme Court's cases can draw to the following conclusion: The party that sues for setting aside the arbitral award by alleging this requirement of preliminary proceedings is the governmental agency, which interesting phenomenon may imply the great potentiality of power abuse; furthermore, when the parties form the contract, aid terms and/or requirements are nor clearly specified and thus ill be subject to construction whenever disputes arise. Consequently, this results in certain uncertainty while application of the agreement is made. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the foregoing requirement procedure can be conceptualized into four categories in order to further analyze and compare some with the FIDIC condition, i.e. , -hat the effect will be if the foregoing condition is not observed; should the doctrine of autonomy of the parties be governing; any applicability of the rule limiting standardized agreement; the observance the due process of law? ... The authors seek to repond to the above questions in this article. Apparently, the most powerful function of the foregoing required proceeding is to facilitate the procedure involved therein. But in substance, rapidity is one of the main features in arbitration. If the arbitration has been recognized, it is redundant to further adopt the preliminary proceedings since the entire arbitral proceedings would be otherwise delayed. As far as the preliminary proceeding is concerned on the aspect of the system level, instead of recognizing same as part of the arbitration proceedings it should be categorized as one element of the arbitration proceedings. The foregoing requirement of preliminary proceeding should be deemed as an arbitrary requirement, which implementation will be solely up to the autonomy of the party; hence, when not observed it is not one of the grounds of action for setting aside arbitral award. Or, its positive function will be sabotaged. |
