摘要: | 伴隨國際經貿往來之日益頻繁,因商業慣例、文化經濟體制、政策規章等差異,所造成之投資貿易爭議時常可見。若能建立一套完善且良好之爭端解決機制,得使投資人於面對商業爭端時更具信心,亦降低投資貿易不確定風險。因此於國際經貿的發展上,爭端解決機制之重要性不可言喻。近年來,於眾多商事爭端解決機制中,受到國際商事爭端當事人所重視者,即是具有迅速性、專業性、程序選擇之自由性、保密性與可執行性等優點的仲裁。
所謂之仲裁制度,係透過當事人間相互約定,將爭端提交於值得信賴之第三人(仲裁人)判斷,作為解決爭端之途徑。而仲裁制度中,訂有仲裁協議之爭端當事人於爭議交付仲裁前或仲裁程序進行中,就是否肯定當事人得賦予仲裁庭核准具有保全性質暫時措施之權限,隨著仲裁制度之發展有著不同之變化。本研究之目的,即係從當事人意思自治與仲裁間之關係出發,試圖尋找我國現行《仲裁法》下,就仲裁保全程序之解釋,是否仍具有不同之可能,並且就我國仲裁制度中保全程序之未來發展及立法修正提出規劃。
Obtaining provisional measures swiftly is paramount importance for parties in arbitration. Whether a provisional measure of protection is an arbitral award is a hotly debated question. Traditionally, requests for provisional measures have been a construct of courts. However, re-questing provisional measures from an arbitrator are increasingly being. There is a great debate within the international community as to the recommend, legality and enforceability of suggestion. This article will proceed to analyze the disadvantages, problems and the alleged ad-vantages of provisional measures from an arbitrator application in ar-bitration. |