仲裁法修订背景下法院在仲裁程序中的职能重塑——以临时措施为视角

Judicial Role Redefinition in Arbitration under the Amended Arbitration Law—From the Perspective of Interim Measures

摘要: 法院作为司法公权力的拥有者，掌握着对司法程序中的强制措施的实施权力。在仲裁程序中，由于以当事人合意为基础的仲裁庭权力不天然包含“强制执行力”，因此在仲裁程序的诸多环节，都必须依靠法院的参与来完成命令发布与措施执行。但是，法院职权在仲裁程序中不应无限延伸，出于对“公正与效率”双位价值的平衡追求，必须深刻厘清法院在仲裁程序中的权力配置，确定其参与仲裁程序的整体职能。以仲裁法的修订为背景，《仲裁法》(修订意见稿)中增添的临时措施能够为法院与仲裁庭、仲裁机构的三方权力配置提供良好视角。法院在仲裁程序各个制度层面与阶段所担任的角色，本质上还应当回归以其“裁决权力的来源”为中心的理论基础。

Abstract: As the owner of judicial public power, the court holds the power to implement compulsory measures in judicial procedures. In arbitration proceedings, due to the fact that the power of the arbitration tribunal based on the agreement of the parties does not naturally include “enforceability”, it is necessary to rely on the participation of the court in many aspects of the arbitration procedure to complete the issuance of orders and the enforcement of measures. However, the power of the court should not be infinitely extended in the arbitration procedure. In pursuit of a balance between the values of “fairness and efficiency”, it is necessary to deeply clarify the power allocation of the court in the arbitration procedure and determine its overall function of participating in the arbitration procedure. Against the backdrop of the revision of the Arbitration Law, the addition of temporary measures in the revised draft of the Arbitration Law can provide a good perspective for the tripartite power allocation between courts, arbitration tribunals, and arbitration institutions. The role played by the court in various institutional levels and stages of arbitration proceedings should essentially return to the theoretical foundation centered on its “source of arbitration power”.