| 摘要: | 近年來，海峽兩岸的經貿來往日益頻繁並持續擴大，特別是隨著兩岸相繼入世，各種類型的貿易和投資活動相對增加，由此而生的各類商事糾紛也日漸增多；而在糾紛產生之後，如何選擇糾紛的解決途徑或方式，及時且有效的解決糾紛，成了兩岸工商界和法律界普遍關心的問題；我們知道，仲裁和訴訟都是解決商事爭議的有效方式，但由於仲裁具有訴訟不可比擬的優點，當事人往往願意通過仲裁途徑解決爭議，而不願訴諸訴訟。
就兩岸間產生的民商事糾紛而言，在目前的情形下，仲裁的方式的確具有訴訟、調解或和解所不可比擬的優點；一方面，以訴訟方式來解決糾紛在目前兩岸分治的狀況下顯然缺乏相應的政治基礎和統一的司法機構，以訴訟方式就不可避免地會產生管轄權爭議等問題。而仲裁處理案件基於當事人雙方的協議，自願接受仲裁機關的管轄，不存在管轄權的爭議問題，而且較之於程序複雜、欠缺彈性的訴訟程序而言，仲裁方式實行一審終結更能迅速解決糾紛，這在目前兩岸尚未實行真正「三通」、經貿糾紛須迅速解決的情況下是較為可行的方式。
在所難免的，兩岸間的仲裁法制存在著諸多差異，這些差異的存在也使得通過仲裁方式解決兩岸爭議形成一些障礙。有鑒於此，本論文將對大陸與臺灣的仲裁法製作一詳盡的分析比較，本論文第一章及第二章先介紹仲裁制度的基本概念及原則，第三章及第四章之內容為研究分析台灣地區仲裁制度以及大陸地區仲裁法制度各自的沿革及內容特色，第五章之主要內容係以兩岸間仲裁制度之內容比較為研究主軸，本章就台灣地區仲裁制度與大陸地區仲裁法制度在內容部分所作之比較研究，係分為仲裁標的、仲裁協議、仲裁機構、仲裁管轄、仲裁判斷、及和解與調解的規定等六大部分作比較研究，第六章主要分析介紹的事兩岸如何認可和執行對方的仲裁判斷，並佐以實際案例研究，最後並提出此篇論文的研究心得跟研究建議，本文擬藉由大陸與台灣仲裁制度的比較研究，在立法上互相借鏡、取長補短，進而完善兩岸仲裁制度，此將有利於兩岸仲裁功能的充分發揮與仲裁事業的健康發展，並使兩岸人民能利用仲裁制度得到最及時的權利救濟管道。
In the recent years, because of the extents of cross-strait economic interaction have enlarged gradually, every kind of cross-strait trade dispute has relatively risen. In the light of coping with the disputes, “arbitration” and “litigation” are both the effective way in solving it.
In terms of the cross-strait trade dispute, arbitration surely possesses with the functions and advantages of “litigation”, “conciliation”, and “reconciliation”. From the perspective of “litigation”, it can not be used in solving the cross-strait trade dispute because of its “unequal” and “disunited” judicial structure and the possibility of causing the cross-strait jurisdiction debate. In light of the “arbitration”, it can be proceeded with basing on the “agreement of the litigants” and also be much effective as its judicial system of “first instance”.
However, there are still many differences existing in the cross-strait arbitration law. In view of it, I will mainly analyze and compare the similarities and dissimilarities of the cross-strait arbitration law. The chapters are as follows:
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2: the basic principles of the arbitration. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4: the basic comparison between cross-strait arbitration system including its history and the characteristics. Chapter 5: in-depth comparison studies of the cross-strait arbitration system including the “target analysis”, “agreement”, “arbitration institution”, “jurisdiction”, and “arbitration judgments”. Chapter 6: case studies, suggestions and conclusion.
To sum up, with the basic research of the cross-strait arbitration system, can provide with the instant help and also give a simple reference model in order to complement to the shortage or the defects of the cross-strait arbitration law. |
