国际商事仲裁自裁管辖原则消极效力研究
|
摘要
国际商事仲裁作为解决国际商事争议一种重要的方式,已被国际社会普遍认可。国际商事仲裁的前提和基础即为仲裁的管辖权问题,管辖权问题是仲裁程序必须解决的首要问题,是仲裁程序进行的基石和条件,因此,对仲裁管辖权的决定问题展开研究具有极为重要的现实意义。
自裁管辖是国际商事仲裁立法的基本原则之一,规定了仲裁庭有权裁定其管辖权。该原则包含了镜像效力,即在仲裁庭有机会就其管辖权作出裁定之前,应限制法院对仲裁庭管辖权的审查。该效力被称为“自裁管辖原则消极效力”,目前已经越来越被实践所接受,体现了国际商事仲裁的特性和自治性,并且与《纽约公约》所蕴含的承认仲裁协议以及仲裁裁决的效力的哲理完全符合。
本文首先通过比较分析不同国家的仲裁立法和法理学,详述消极效力的构成要素。从法国立法和欧盟公约来看,自裁管辖原则消极效力已经逐渐超越了该原则的原有之意,作为该原则的基本侧面现已得到了很多国家的接受。本文主张自裁管辖原则积极效力与消极效力均是基于正确的理论和政策考量,尽管一时之间自裁管辖原则消极效力尚显孤立,但是近来的一个趋势是更多的仲裁立法与实践乐于接受自裁管辖原则的消极效力。然而,该问题仍然极富争议性,需要我们仔细地研究不同方法背后所隐含的政策考量。
我国大多数关于自裁管辖原则的讨论,尤其是在我国文献资料中,仅涉及自裁管辖原则的积极效力,这是个简单的毫无争议的概念。本文运用比较法、实证分析法和法哲学的方法,围绕自裁管辖原则消极效力展开研究,对其持支持态度。
本文尝试着就如何分配法院与仲裁庭之间的权力这一复杂的问题提出一些富有建设性的建议。本文的观点是若想在我国确立更加合理的自裁管辖原则消极效力,最适合的方法就是修改过时的《仲裁法》。在修改《仲裁法》时,应该从所讨论的各国关于自裁管辖原则消极效力所采纳的不同方法中吸收珍贵的经验。结论是我国需要现代的商事仲裁立法。
As an important dispute settlement to international commercial disputes, international commercial arbitration has gained universally accepted. Jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction of arbitration is of natural necessity. The jurisdiction issue is the foundation stone of arbitration process, a comprehensive and profound study on Jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction of arbitration would no doubt benefit the international commercial arbitration
The notion of competence-competence is one of the founding principles of international commercial arbitration law. Provides for the arbitrators' power to rule on their own jurisdiction, this principle embodies the mirroring effect that the courts should refrain from engaging into the examination of the arbitrators' jurisdiction before the arbitrators themselves have had an opportunity to do so.Known as the negative effect of the principle of competence-competence, this rule of priority in favor of the arbitrators, today increasingly recognized in practice, exemplifies the specific nature and autonomy of international arbitration, in full harmony with the New York Convention's philosophy of recognition of the validity of the arbitration agreement and of the award resulting from the arbitral process.
The dissertation first examines the elements of the negative competence-competence, through a comparative analysis of the arbitration legislation and jurisprudence of various national jurisdictions. As will be shown, the principle of negative competence-competence has gradually grown bigger than its origins, traced in French law and the European Convention, as fundamental aspects of the principle are now accepted in many jurisdictions. The dissertation will argue that both the positive and negative competence-competence are premised upon sound theoretical and policy considerations The complex but at the same time fascinating issue of negative competence-competence is still in the making. Nevertheless, as the dissertation showed, a series of recent legislation and practice in a number of jurisdictions show that the negative aspect of the doctrine gain continuing acceptance.
Most discussions of competence-competence, especially in China literature, treat only the positive aspect of the doctrine, which is a simple and uncontroversial notion. The thesis, as guided by the basic theories of comparative laws,empirical study and jurisprudence, centers on the negative competence-competence and argues for the adoption of the negative aspect of the doctrine
The dissertation concludes with some tentative suggestions on the complex issue of allocation of powers between national courts and arbitral tribunals. The more likely path to a more robust negative competence-competence doctrine in Chinese law is through legislation overhauling the outmoded Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China. In any such legislative undertaking, valuable lessons can be drawn from the various approaches to the negative competence-competence doctrine in other jurisdictions discussed above. A legislative solution would allow a nuanced and balanced approach. The upshot then is another call for a modern China arbitration statute.
自裁管辖是国际商事仲裁立法的基本原则之一,规定了仲裁庭有权裁定其管辖权。该原则包含了镜像效力,即在仲裁庭有机会就其管辖权作出裁定之前,应限制法院对仲裁庭管辖权的审查。该效力被称为“自裁管辖原则消极效力”,目前已经越来越被实践所接受,体现了国际商事仲裁的特性和自治性,并且与《纽约公约》所蕴含的承认仲裁协议以及仲裁裁决的效力的哲理完全符合。
本文首先通过比较分析不同国家的仲裁立法和法理学,详述消极效力的构成要素。从法国立法和欧盟公约来看,自裁管辖原则消极效力已经逐渐超越了该原则的原有之意,作为该原则的基本侧面现已得到了很多国家的接受。本文主张自裁管辖原则积极效力与消极效力均是基于正确的理论和政策考量,尽管一时之间自裁管辖原则消极效力尚显孤立,但是近来的一个趋势是更多的仲裁立法与实践乐于接受自裁管辖原则的消极效力。然而,该问题仍然极富争议性,需要我们仔细地研究不同方法背后所隐含的政策考量。
我国大多数关于自裁管辖原则的讨论,尤其是在我国文献资料中,仅涉及自裁管辖原则的积极效力,这是个简单的毫无争议的概念。本文运用比较法、实证分析法和法哲学的方法,围绕自裁管辖原则消极效力展开研究,对其持支持态度。
本文尝试着就如何分配法院与仲裁庭之间的权力这一复杂的问题提出一些富有建设性的建议。本文的观点是若想在我国确立更加合理的自裁管辖原则消极效力,最适合的方法就是修改过时的《仲裁法》。在修改《仲裁法》时,应该从所讨论的各国关于自裁管辖原则消极效力所采纳的不同方法中吸收珍贵的经验。结论是我国需要现代的商事仲裁立法。
As an important dispute settlement to international commercial disputes, international commercial arbitration has gained universally accepted. Jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction of arbitration is of natural necessity. The jurisdiction issue is the foundation stone of arbitration process, a comprehensive and profound study on Jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction of arbitration would no doubt benefit the international commercial arbitration
The notion of competence-competence is one of the founding principles of international commercial arbitration law. Provides for the arbitrators' power to rule on their own jurisdiction, this principle embodies the mirroring effect that the courts should refrain from engaging into the examination of the arbitrators' jurisdiction before the arbitrators themselves have had an opportunity to do so.Known as the negative effect of the principle of competence-competence, this rule of priority in favor of the arbitrators, today increasingly recognized in practice, exemplifies the specific nature and autonomy of international arbitration, in full harmony with the New York Convention's philosophy of recognition of the validity of the arbitration agreement and of the award resulting from the arbitral process.
The dissertation first examines the elements of the negative competence-competence, through a comparative analysis of the arbitration legislation and jurisprudence of various national jurisdictions. As will be shown, the principle of negative competence-competence has gradually grown bigger than its origins, traced in French law and the European Convention, as fundamental aspects of the principle are now accepted in many jurisdictions. The dissertation will argue that both the positive and negative competence-competence are premised upon sound theoretical and policy considerations The complex but at the same time fascinating issue of negative competence-competence is still in the making. Nevertheless, as the dissertation showed, a series of recent legislation and practice in a number of jurisdictions show that the negative aspect of the doctrine gain continuing acceptance.
Most discussions of competence-competence, especially in China literature, treat only the positive aspect of the doctrine, which is a simple and uncontroversial notion. The thesis, as guided by the basic theories of comparative laws,empirical study and jurisprudence, centers on the negative competence-competence and argues for the adoption of the negative aspect of the doctrine
The dissertation concludes with some tentative suggestions on the complex issue of allocation of powers between national courts and arbitral tribunals. The more likely path to a more robust negative competence-competence doctrine in Chinese law is through legislation overhauling the outmoded Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China. In any such legislative undertaking, valuable lessons can be drawn from the various approaches to the negative competence-competence doctrine in other jurisdictions discussed above. A legislative solution would allow a nuanced and balanced approach. The upshot then is another call for a modern China arbitration statute.
引文
[1]冯克菲.管辖权/关系圈理论及其在我国的实践.仲裁与法律.2002,1.
[2]Schmitthoff, The Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in Schultsz & Van den Berg ed.,The Art of Arbitration, Essays on International Arbitration:Liber Amicortum Pieter Sanders, 1982:285.
[3]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践.北京：法律出版社,2000：150.
[4]William W. Park,The 2002 Fresh fields Lecture-Arbitration's Protean Nature:The Value of Rules and The Risk of Discretion,19 ARB. INT'L.279,280(2003).
[5]THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU, CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION,3d ed.2002:20.
[6]PAUL A.GELINAS, ARBITRATION CLAUSES:ACHIEVING EFFECTIVENESS,IN IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS 49 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed,1999).
[7]Anam Indus. Co.,Ltd. v. Twi Lite Int'l Inc.,No. C-96-2323 SI,1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16060(N.D. Cal.Oct 24,1996),also in YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 910-911(1998).
[8]ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 185(1981).
[9]W. MICHEAL REISMAN,SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION: BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 107(1992).
[10]ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO.5,XTH INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CONGRESS.STOCKHOLM,21-29 MAY 1990 (A. J. van den Berg ed.,1991)
[11]M. Scott Donahey, Defending the Arbitration against Sabotage,13 J. INT'L ARB.93,110 (1996).
[12][美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法.邓正来译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：486.
[13]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[14]Walther Habscheid, Das Problem der Kompetenz-Kompetenz des Schiedsgerichts,78 SCHWEIZE. JURISTENZEITUNG 321 (1982).
[15]Gaillard Enmmanuel,"The Negative Effect of Competence-Competence,"Mealey's International Arbitration Report,2002 (1):27.
[16]Yves Derains & Eric A. Schwartz. A guide to Ne ICC Rules of Arbitration[J].Kluwer Law International,1998(5).
[17]Carlos E. Alfaro & Flvia Cuimarey, Who Should Determine Arbitrability? Arbitration in a Changing Economic and Political Environment, ARB, INT'L,1996(12):421.
[18]Peter Gross, Competence of Competence:An English View,8 ARB. INT'L 205(1992).
[19]SMG Swedish Machine Group v.Swedish Machine Group, Inc.,No.90 C 6081,1991 U. S.Dist. LEXIS 780 (N.D. ILL. Jan.4,1991);XVIII Y. B. COM. ARB.457(193).
[20]薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京：法律出版社,2003：1088.
[21]Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary. ST. Paul,MINN,1999, Seventh edition,579.
[22]John H. Wigmore. A Students'Textbook of the Law of Evidence,1935,237.
[23]肖永平,胡永庆.法律选择中的当事人意思自治.法律科学.1997(5)：75.
[24]韩德培.国际私法.北京：北京大学出版社,2000：197.
[25]周清华,任宪龙.法官真意还是当事人真意—“默示意思自治”解析.法学杂志.2008(6)：26.
[26]程显峰.论国际商事仲裁的意思自治与司法监督：(硕士论文).北京：对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[27]吕岩峰.当事人意思自治原则论纲.中国国际司法与比较法年刊.北京：法律出版社,1999：53.
[28]尹田.论意思自治原则.政治与法律.1995(3)：38.
[29]屈广清,周清华,吴莉婧.论仲裁制度中的第三人.中国海商法年刊.2001(3)：230.
[30]屈广清,周清华.国际民事程序法.长春：吉林大学出版社,2003：582.
[31]孙国华.法理学教程.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1994：94.
[32]严存生.法律的价值.太原：山西人民出版社,1991：28.
[33]乔克欲,黎晓平.法的价值论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1991年版：40.
[34][日]川岛武宜.现代化与法(中译本).北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994年版：246.
[35][美]培里等.机制和评价(中译本).北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989年版：3.
[36]崔健国.民事诉讼程序的定位.政法论坛.1995(3)：62.
[37][美]理查德·A·波斯纳著.苏兆康译.法律的经济分析(上、下册).北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年版：156.
[38]戴文礼.公平论.北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：41.
[39][美]乔·萨托利.民主新论.北京：东方出版社,1993：340.
[40][美]哈特.法律的概念.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996：157.
[41][美]彼德·斯坦,约翰·普德.王献评译.西方社会的法律价值.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1989：21.
[42]张文显.20世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,1996：130.
[43][英]施米托夫著.国际贸易法文选.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993：79.
[44]周清华,李海跃.以仲裁的价值取向为视角解析CIETAC 2005年仲裁规则.辽宁大学学报哲学社会科学版.2007(3)：147.
[45]Jean-Francois Poudret, Le droit applicable a la convention d'arbtrage, in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT--ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS,ASA SPECIAL SERIES,NO.8 23(1994).
[46]Klaus Peter Berger, International Arbitral Practice and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts,46 AM. J. COMP. L.129,131(1998).
[47]Catherine A. Rogers, Context and Institutional Structure in Attorney Regulation: Constructing an Enforcement Regime for International Arbitration,39 STAN. J. INT'L L.1, 14 (2003).
[48]William Tetley, Q. C.,A Canadian Looks at American Conflict of laws Theory and Practice, Especially in the Light of the American Legal and Social Systems (Corrective vs. Distributive Justice),38 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.299,322(1999).
[49]MARTIN HUNTER ET AL.,THE FRESHFIELDS GUIDE TO ARBITRATION AND ADR:CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS 142(1993).
[50]1968年欧共体《民商事司法管辖权和判决执行公约》第23条.
[51]Swiss Fed. Trib.,14 May 2001,Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA v. Colon Container Terminal SA,2001(3)ASA Bull.562-563.
[52]Charles Poncet,'Swiss Parliament Removes Lis Pendens as an Obstacle to International Arbitrations in Switzerland',in 2006 World Arb.& Med. Rep.395.
[53]Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.395,403-404(1967).
[54]谢石松.商事仲裁法学.北京：高等教育出版社,2003：209-210.
[55]王生长.中国特色的仲裁管辖权决定制度.仲裁与法律.2003,5：14.
[56]刘德标,于又燕,任晓非.国际商务案例选编.北京：中国商务出版社,2003：448.
[57]W. Michael Reisman, W.Laurence Craig, William Park & Jan Paulsson ed.,op. Cit. at 645.
[58]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁.武汉：武汉大学出版社,1994.
[59]乔欣.仲裁权研究.北京：法律出版社,2001.
[60]程德钧.涉外仲裁与法律(第一辑).北京：中国人民大学出版社,1992.
[61]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑).北京：中国统计出版社,1994.
[62]宁敏,宋连斌.评国际商事仲裁中的管辖权原则.法学评论.2000,2.
[63]徐清宇,杨咏梅.仲裁发展的障碍问题探析.政法论坛(中国政法大学学报).2000,3.
[64]郭寿康,赵秀文.国际经济贸易仲裁法.北京：中国法制出版社,1995.
[65]赵威.国际仲裁法理论与实务.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1995.
[66]谭兵.中国仲裁制度研究.北京：法律出版社,1995.
[67]刘想树.中国涉外仲裁裁决制度与学理研究.北京：法律出版社,2001.
[68]黄进.仲裁法学(修订本).北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[69]肖峋.仲裁制度仲裁程序与仲裁实例分析.北京：中国法制出版社,1997.
[70]杨崇森.商务仲裁之理论与实际.台湾：台湾省中央文物供应社,1984.
[71]乔欣.仲裁权研究—仲裁程序公正与权利保障.北京：法律出版社,2001.
[72]唐德华,孙秀君.仲裁法及配套规定新释新解.北京：人民法院出版社,2003.
[73]张斌生.仲裁法新论.厦门：厦门大学出版社,2002.
[74]张建华.仲裁新论.北京：中国法制出版社,2002.
[75]胡充寒.国际商务仲裁与诉讼研究.长沙：中南工业大学出版社,1996.
[76]李玉泉.国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁.武汉：武汉大学出版社,1994.
[77]李汉生等.仲裁法释论.北京：中国法制出版社,1995.
[78]郑远民等.国际私法—国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁.北京：中信出版社,2004.
[79]刘景一.涉外仲裁实务与案例评析.北京：人民法院出版社,2001.
[80]杨树明.国际商事仲裁法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2002.
[81]李圣敬.国际经贸仲裁法实务.长春：吉林人民出版社,2003.
[82]Hecht v. Busiman's, Cass. le civ.,1972(4):843.
[83]Cass.,Sept.17,1947,n.1570,reprinted in GIORGIO BERNINI,ITALY-AD INFORMANDUM, INT'L. HANDBOOK ON COMM. ARB. SUPPL.17.(1994) (on file with author).
[84]Berthold Goldman, The Complementary Roles of Judges and Arbitrators in Ensuring that International Commercial Arbitration is Effective,in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION:60 YEARS OF ICC ARBITRATION, A LOOK AT THE FUTURE,1984:257,263.
[85]CA Colmar, Nov.29,1968, Impex v. P. A. Z.,JCP, Ed. G.,Pt.Ⅱ.No.16,246(1970).
[86]William Park, Determining Arbitral Jurisdiction:Allocation of Tasks Between Courts and Arbitrators,8 Am Rev. Int'l Arb.133,142-143(1997).
[87]Premium Nafta Products Ltd.v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007]UKHL 40.
[88]Mayer Pierre,"laU" 1989-v P.327 AT P.339.
[89]CA Paris, Mar.9,1972,Lefrere v. SA Les Petroles Pursan,,1972 RTD COM.344.
[90]Civil 1st,25 Apr 2006, Rev. Arb.79(2007).
[91]1983年《法国民事诉讼法典》第1458条第2款.
[92]Supreme Court, Civil 1st,16 Oct 2001,Bull Civ. I,254;Rev. Arb.919 (2002).
[93]Gerold Herrmann, The Arbitration Agreement as the Foundation of Arbitration and Its Recognition by the Courts, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN A CHANGING WORLD 42,45-46(Albert Jan van den Berg ed.,1994).
[94]Philippe Fouchard,La cooperation du President du Tribunalde Grande Instance s 1' arbitrage, Rev. Arb.1985:27.
[95]Herrera Petrus, Christian, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's Arbitration Act,The American Review of International Arbitration,vol.11,2000:408.
[96]Cass, le civ.,26 June 2001,2001(3) Rev. arb.529.
[97]Cass.le civ.,7 June 2006, Copropriete Maritime Jules Verne v. American Bureau of Shipping,2006(4)Rev. orb.945,at 946-947.
[98]CA Paris,4 December 2002,American Bureau of Shipping v. Copropriete Maritime Jules Verne,2003(4)Rev. arb.1286, with note by E. Gaillard at 1290,18(12) Int'1 Arb. Rep. D-1 (2003),XXIX Y.B. Com. Arb.657(2004).
[99]Klaus P. Berger, Germany Adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law,1 INT'L ARB. L. REV.121,122 (1998).
[100]HOWARD M. HOLTZMANN & JOSEPH E. NEUHAUS,A GUIDE TO THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMENTARY 303(1989).
[101]Pacific Int'l Lines Ltd. v. Tsinlien Metals & Minerals Co.,18 Y.B. INT'L ARB.180, 185-186(S.C.H.K.1992).
[102]Rio Algom Ltd. v. Sammi Steel Co.,18 Y. B. INT'L ARB.166,170-171(Ont.Ct. Justice 1991).
[103]A. Sanuel,Jurisdictional Problems in International Commercial Arbitration:a Study of Belgain, DUTCH, English, French, Swedish, Swiss,U. S.AND West German Law(1989):179-189.
[104]Schlosser,Peter, The Competence of Arbitrators and of courts, Arbitration International 189,1992:199-200.
[105]Park, William W, An Arbitrator's Jurisdition to Determine Jurisdiction, ICCA Congress, Montreal May-Hune 2006:67.
[106]Decision of 13 January 2005, reported NJW 16/2005 AT 1125.
[107]Peter Schlosser, La nouvelle legislation allemande sur 1'arbitrage,1998 REV. ARB. 291,298.
[108]German 2000/2.Recht und Praxis Shiedsgerichtsbarkeit 13.An abstract is punblished in www. Uncitral.org. case 373 MAL (art.16).
[109]Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA DTF 121(1995) III 38.
[110]Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M.,ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull, at 531.
[111]Emmanuel Gaillard, La reconnaissance, en droit suisse, de la seconde moitie du principe d'effet negatif de la competence-competence, in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution-Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner at H 319 et seq, ICC Pub. No.693 (2005);Andreas Bucher,'L'examen de la comp etence internationale par le juge suisse',2007 La semaine judiciaire 153,in particular at 173 et seq.
[112]Jean-Francois Poudret,Exception d'arbitrage et litispendance en droit suisse Comment departager le juge et 1'arbitre?,25(2) ASA Bull.230(2007);Jean-Francois Poudret, Note following the Swiss Federal Tribunal's decision of 14 May 2001 in Fomento de Construcciones,2001(4) Rev. arb.835.
[113]Case no.4p.284-1995,decision of 17 August 1995 by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
[114]Karrer,Piere and Kalin-Nauer,Claudia,Is there a Fvour Jurisdictions Arbitri? Standards of Review of Arbitral Jurisdiction Decisions in Switzerland, Journal of International Arbitration,13(3),1996:31-38.
[115]European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961,484 U. N. T. S. 349, art. VI (3) (1961).
[116]《法国民事程序法典》第1458条.
[117]《1987年瑞士国际私法典》第7条第b款,第191条.
[118]First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938(1995).
[119]Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,537 U.S.79 (2002).
[120]NCITRAL Arbitration Rules G. A. Res.98, U. N. GAOR,21st Sess. Supp. No.17, U. N. Doc. A/RES/31/98 art.21(1976).
[121]American Arbitration Association International Rules of 2001,art.15 (2001), available at http://www.adr.org.
[122]London Court of International Arbitration Rules of 1998 art.23(1998),available at http://www.lcia-arbitration.com/lc.
[123]《1996年仲裁法》第4条第2款,第31条第1款,第31条第2款,第31条第3款,第31条第4款,第31条第5款,第32条第2款.
[124]Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose & Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996:A Commentary, second edition, Blackwell Science Ltd,2000:166.
[125]Report of The Commercial Court and Admiralty Court,2005-2006:10.
[126]Azov Shipping Co. v. Baltic Shipping Co.[1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep.68 and [1999] 2 Lloyd' s Rep.159.
[127]Downing v. Al Tameer Establishment[2002] EWCA Civ.721,i31;Al-Naimi v. Islamic Press Agency [2000]1 Lloyd's Rep.522,525; Law Debenture Trust Corp. Pic.Elektrim Finance BV [2005]EWHC1412, J 34 (Ch);Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2006] EWHC 2583,1 29 (Comm).
[128]Jan Paulsson, Arbitration-Friendliness:Promises of Principle and Realities of Practice',paper presented at the International Financial Services London Conference:'Has LondonMet the Challenge?, London,1 December 2006.
[129]Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40, J 135.
[130]Bruce Harris, Report On The England Arbitration Act 1996, p7, ICMA XVI Congress Papers, Printed in Singapore by The Print Lodge Pte Ltd,2007.
[131]UNCITRAL, Status of 1958-Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
[132]Martin Gusy, The History and Significance of the New York Convention,4 VINDOBONA J. INT'L COM. L.& ARB.147,147 (2000).
[133]Pieter Sanders, The History of the New York Convention, in ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO. 9, IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention.
[134]ALAN REDFERN & MARTIN HUNTER, LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 7 (3d ed.1999).
[135]Philip J. McConnaughay, The Scope of Autonomy in International Contracts and Its Relation to Economic Regulation and Development,39 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.595,608-09 (2001).
[136]MICHAEL REISMAN ET AL.,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, CASES,MATERIALS AND NOTES ON THE RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES 524 (2001).
[137]ICC Award,December 7,2001,no.10623,21 ASA BULLETIN 82,90(2003).
[138]William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform, 36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1241,1248,1262-1263(2003).
[139]First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,514 U. S.938(1995).
[140]Filanto v. Chilewich Int'l Corp.,984 F.2d 58,60(2d Cir.1993).[141]《1961年欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第6条第1款.
[142]Discussion on Italian case law infra subpart IV. E.
[143]SIR MICHAEL J. MUSTILL & STEWARD C. BOYD, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN ENGLAND 475-476(2d ed.1989).
[144]KLAUS PETER BERGER, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ARBITRATION 327,1993.
[145]Collins v. Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc.,2 F. Supp.2d 1465,1468 (M. D. Ga.1998).
[146]Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB. INT'L 29(1996).
[147]Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB. INT'L 30(1996).
[148]Emmanuel Gaillard, Validity and Scope of Arbitration Agreements,220 N. Y. L. J.3(1998); VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 147(1981).
[149]Yves Derains, The ICC Arbitral Process Part VIII,Choice of Law Applicable to the Contract and International Arbitration,6 ICC INT'L CT. OF ARB. BULL.10,16(1995).
[150]LEX MERCATORIA AND ARBITRATION:A DISCUSSION OF THE NEW LAW MERCHANT (Thomas E. Carbonneau ed.,1998);Michael Pryles, Application of the Lex Mercatoria in International Commercial Arbitration,18 MEALEY'S INT'L ARB. REPORT 21 (2003).
[151]John B. Tieder Jr.,Factors to Consider in the Choice of Procedural and Substantive Law in International Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.393(2003).
[152]G. W. HAIGHT, CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS: SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF RECORD OF UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE,27-28(1958).
[153]章尚锦主编.国际私法.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版：250.
[154]Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligation, June 19,1980,1980 0. J. (C 27) 36 art.1(2) (d).
[155]Piero Bernardini,Arbitration Clauses:Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, at 200.
[156]GIORGIO BERNINI,L'ARBITRATO:DIRITTO INTERNO CONVENZIONI INTERNAZIONALI 125(1993).
[157]《欧洲公约》第6条第1款。
[158]GIUDITTA CORDERO MOSS,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 280 n.707(1999).
[159]Amy J. Schmitz,Refreshing Contractual Analysis of ADR Agreements by Curing Bipolar Avoidance of Modern Common Law,9 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV.1 (2004).
[160]Il Codice Civile Italiano, C. c. n,218, art.4 [paragraph] 2 (1995) (the Italian Private International Law).
[161]Philippe Fouchard, Note, REV.ARB.653(1989).
[162]CA Paris, Dec.8,1988, REV. ARB.150(1990).
[163]Charles Jarrosson, Note sous Cour d'Appel de Paris,8 December 1988, REV. ARB.157 (1990).
[164]TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO Ⅲ & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 87 (2d ed.2003).
[165]MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL (1990).
[166]Christian H. Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 AM. REV. INT'L ARB.397,407-408(2000).
[167]JEAN ROBERT, L'ARBITRAGE. DROIT INTERNE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 103 (6th ed.1993).
[168]Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, le ch.,Dec.7,1994, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1996,245,note Jarrosson.
[169]William W. Park, Text and Context in International Dispute Resolution,15 B. U. Int'l L. J.191,202(1997).
[170]Otto Sandrock, To Continue Nationalizing or to De-Nationalize? That is Now the Question in International Arbitration,12 AM. REV.INT'L ARB.301,308 (2001).
[171]JEAN ROBERT & THOMAS CARBONNEAU, THE FRENCH LAW OF ARBITRATION at II:2-10,2-11. (Matthew Bender ed.,1983).
[172]John J. Barcelo III,Who Decides the Arbitrators' Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1124,1125 (2003).
[173]INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD 3 (Stephanie Marrie & Aloke Ray eds.2004).
[174]Filip D. Ly, Commercial Law as a Refuge from Contract Law:A Comparative and Uniform Law Perspective,45 WAYNE L. REV.1825,1836 (2000).
[175]Cour de cassation[Cass.][highest court of ordinary jurisdiction],Cass. le civ. Dec.20,1993,REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1994,116,118,note Helene Gaudemet-Tallon.
[176]Huber, Arbitration Clause "by Reference," in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT--ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS,ASA SPECIAL SERIES,NO.878-88(1994).
[177]United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the 23rd Meeting, U.N. Doc.E/CONF.26/SR.23 (Sept.12,1958),reprinted in INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:NEW YORK CONVENTION III.C.at I.B.3(Giorgio Gaja ed.,1978).
[178]Dr. Peter Schlosser, Report on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol on its Interpretation by the Court of Justice,19790. J. (C 59) 71 (Mar.5,1979).
[179]James M. Hosking, The Third Party Non-Signatory's Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration:Doing Justice Without Destroying Consent,4 PEPP. DISP. RESOL. L. J. 469,542-543(2004).
[180]9 U.S.C.[subsection]201-208(2006).
[181]9 U.S. C.[section] 205.
[182]David L. Threlkeld & Co. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd.,923 F.2d 245,250 (2d Cir.1991).
[183]417 U.S.506 (1974).
[184]473 U.S.614(1985).
[185]Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427(1953).
[186]American Safety Equip. Corp. v. J. P. McGuire & Co,391 F.2d 821,825 (2d Cir.1968) (citing Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427,444(1953)).
[187]Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrystler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,621(1985).
[188]Sherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519-520(1974).
[189]Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1(1972).
[190]New York Convention, art. V.
[191]Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno,684 F.2d 184,186-87(1st Cir.1982).
[200]DOMENICO DI PIETRO & MARTIN PLATTE, ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARDS: THE NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958 56-61(2001).
[201]YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 710-712(1997)
[202]YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 371-372(1983)
[203]9 U.S.C. [section] 202.
[204]Intertec Contracting A/S v. Turner Steiner Int'1,S.A.,No.98-CV-9116,2000 WL 709004 (S.D. N.Y. May 31,2000),aff'd,6 F. App'x 61 (2d Cir.2001).
[205]Jennifer L. Pilla, Note, Agreeing on Where to Disagree:Jain v. De Mere and International Arbitration Agreements,21 N. C. J. INT'L L.& COM. REG.421.
[206]9 U.S.C.[section] 2.
[207]William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB. INT'L 1248-49 (1996).
[208]460 U.S.1 (1983).
[209]465 U.S.1 (1984).
[210]Linda R. Hirshman, The Second Arbitration Trilogy:The Federalization of Arbitration Law,71 VA. L. REV.1305,1378 (1985).
[211]482 U.S.483 (1987).
[212]GARY BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 352 (2d ed.2001).
[213]First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U. S.938,947(1995);Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc.19 F.3d 1503 (3d Cir.1994).
[214]Barcelo, supra note 35, at 1121.
[215]Reuben, supra note 291,at 870-879.
[216]6 P.3d 669,688-694(Cal.2000).
[217]Jeffrey W. Stempel,Arbitration, Unconscionability and Equilibrium:The Return of Unconscionability Analysis As a Counterweight to Arbitration Formalism,19 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL.757,762-763(2004).
[218]First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938,944(1995).
[219]Susan L. Karamanian, The Road to the Tribunal and Beyond:International Commercial Arbitration and United States Courts,34 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV.62(2002),REV.20(2002).
[220]Cass.,sez. un.,13 Dec.1971,n.3620, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 190(1976)
[221]Cass.,sez.un.,25 May 1976, n.1877,YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 278(1978)
[222]Cass.(I),sez.un.,22 May 1995, n.5601,YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 611(1996).
[223]Cass.,2 marzo 1996, n.1649, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 734(1997).
[224]Il Codice Civile Italiano, C. c.,n.218, art.4, [paragraph] 2(1995);,C. c., n.262, art.1341(1995);art.1342(1995).
[225]Cass.,18 April 2003, n.6349.
[226]Cass.,28 October 1993,n.10704, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 739(1995).
[227]Cass.,sez.un.,10 March 2000,n.58,XXVI YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 816 (2001).
[228]Supreme Court, sez. Un.,28 July 1998, n.7398, Foro It.I 1998, under Arbitrato n.68.
[229]ADAM SAMUEL, JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN, DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS,U.S.AND WEST GERMAN LAW 96(1989).
[230]RENE DAVID,L'ARBITRAGE DANS LE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 191-199(1982).
[231]Harold S.Crowter & Anthony G. V.Tobin, Ensuring that Arbitration Remains a Preferred Option for International Dispute Resolution-Some Practical Considerations,19 J. INT'L ARB.301 (2002).
[232]Christopher Drahozal,Of Rabbits and Rhinoceri:A Survey of Empirical Research on International Commercial Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.23,25 (2003).
[233]New York Convention Day, June 10,1958,Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the New York Convention--Experience and Prospects, U. N. Sales No.E.99.V.2(1958),available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/NYCDay-e. pdf.
[234]在国际商事仲裁领域将来可能的工作：联合国国际贸易法委员会秘书处注释.
[235]Gerold Herrmann, Does the World Need Additional Uniform Legislation on Arbitration?, 15 ARB. INT'L 216,236(1999).
[236]TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO III & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 89 (2d ed.2003).
[237]W. MICHEAL REISMAN, SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION: BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 113(1992).
[238]Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,638(1985).
[239]JEAN-FRANCOIS POUDRET & SEBASTIEN BESSON, DROIT COMPARE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL 443 (2002).
[240]Albert Jan van den Berg, Some Practical Questions Concerning the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY,at 212-213(United Nations ed.,1995).
[241]William K. Slate II,The Culture Connection in International Commercial Arbitration, 59 DISP. RESOL.J.1,13 (2004).
[242]Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its 35th Session, Supp.No.17,[paragraph] 243, U. N. Doc. A/57/17(June 17-28,2002).
[243]Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its Thirty-seventh Session, Introduction to the Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Sales Convention,[paragraphs]17-18, U. N. Doc.A/CN.9/562(June 9,2004)
[244]Fritz Enderlein, Uniform Law and Its Application by Judges and Arbitrators, in INTERNATIONAL UNIFORM LAW IN PRACTICE 329 (Unidroit ed.,1988).
[245]Elizabeth H. Patterson, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods:Unification and the Tension between Compromise and Domination,22 STAN. J. INT'L L.263,283(1986).
[246]Bernini,Voices of International Practice, in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY,1982:226.
[247]韩健.论国际商事仲裁中的管辖权异议问题.中国国际私法与比较法年刊(第3卷).北京：法律出版社.2000：477.
[248]王勇.我国国际商事仲裁中的管辖权/管辖权原则之再述评—兼与宁敏、宋连斌先生商榷.当代法学.2000(2).
[249]全国人大常委会法制工作委员会胡康生主任,2004年10月在纪念仲裁法颁布10周年大会上讲话摘录.
[250]朱志国.中国仲裁基础.北京：警官教育出版社.1997：195.
[251]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002：37.
[252]杨玲.论仲裁机构的法律地位—兼谈我国仲裁法的修改.仲裁与法律.2005：53.
[253]赵健.回顾与展望：世纪之交的中国国际商事仲裁.仲裁与法律.2001：35.
[254]王生长.适用CIETAC新规则进行仲裁.大律师网.http://www.chinalawyer.org.cn/xueshu/ShowConfArticle.asp?id=236.
[255]最高人民法院法释[1998]27号《关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复》
[256]最高人民法院法释[2006]7号《关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》
[257]最高人民法院法发[1995]18号《关于人民法院处理与涉外仲裁事项有关问题的通知》.
[258]高雅.试论国际商事仲裁协议的效力认定主体——兼评中国的立法与实践.法律研究,2005：11.
[259]William Park,The Arbitrator's Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction, in ICCA Congress Series No.13, International Arbitration 2006:Back to Basics 89.
[260]P. Fouchard, E. Gaillard & B. Goldman, On International Commercial Arbitration, in Title of the book para 682 (E. Gaillard & J. Savage eds.,1999).
[261]Thomas Carbonneau, The Law and Practice of Arbitration,189 (2nd ed 2007);Fouchard, Gaillard & Goldman, supra note 2, at 650 et seq.
[262]Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M. Kroll,Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-16(2003).
[263]宋连斌.国际商事仲裁管辖权研究.北京：法律出版社,2000：209-210.
[264]杨良宜.国际商事仲裁.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997：128.
[265]Christian Herrera Petrus,Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Span's 1988 Arbitration Act,American Review of International Arbitration,2000.
[267]Steven Walt,Decision by Division:The Contractarian Structure of Commercial Arbitration,51 Rutgers L.,Rev.369:370.
[268]翁国民,黄子凯.仲裁的自裁管辖权及其与仲裁管辖权司法监督的程序竞合.法学论坛.2001,11(188)：28.
[269]孙珺.德国仲裁立法改革.外国法译评.1999,1.
[270]Alan Redfern & Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed.),Sweet & Maxwell 1991:275.
[271]中国国际商会仲裁研究所编译.国际商事仲裁文集(中英文对照).北京：中国对外经济贸易出版社,1998：40,278.
[272]PAUL FRIEDLAND, ARBITRATION CLAUSES FOR INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS (2000).
[273]赵秀文.论仲裁条款独立原则.法学研究.2000,19(4)：69.
[274]李双元.国际经济贸易法律与实务新论.长沙：湖南大学出版社,1996：392-395.
[275]Antonias Dimolitsad,Separability and Kompentenz-Kompentenz,ICCA Congress Series No.9, Paris/1999:217.
[276]陈治东.国际商事仲裁法.北京：法律出版社,1998：125.
[277]Janet A. Rosen, Arbitration under Private International Law:The Doctrine of Separability and Compentence de la compentence, Fordham International Law Journal,Vol.17, 1994:603.
[278]S.Schwebel,The Severability of the Arbitration Agreement,International Arbitration: Three Salient Problems, Grotius Publications, Cambridge,1987:2-3,50.
[279]John Yukio Gotanda, An Efficient Method for Determing Jurisdiction in International Arbitrations,40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 11(2001).
[280]Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.(http:www. un. or. at./uncitral).
[281]Shirin Philipp, Is the Suprem Court Bucking the Trend? First Options v. Kaplan in Light of European Reform Initiatives in Arbitration Law,14 Boston University International Law Journal 119(Spring,1996).
[282]宋连斌,林一飞编译.国际商事仲裁资料精选.北京：知识产权出版社,2004：102.
[283]赵秀文.国际商事仲裁案例解析.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：2-15.
[284]ICC Case No.2476/1976, I ICC Awards 289.
[285]Robert Merkin,Arbitration Act 1996-An Annotated Guide,1996:52-53.
[286]Judgement of May 5,1977, Bundesgerichtshof [Suprem Court],68 BGHZ 356 (F. R. G.).
[1]李双元.国际经济贸易法律与实务新论.长沙：湖南大学出版社,1996：396.
[2]宋连斌.国际商事仲裁管辖权研究.北京：法律出版社,2000：209.
[3]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[4]赵秀文.国际化商事仲裁极其适用法律研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2002：40-41.
[5]参见严红.自裁管辖原则与我国仲裁管辖权的确认.浙江工商大学学报(原浙江省政法管理干部学院学报.2004(69)：75.；张泽宏.论我国仲裁庭自裁管辖权原则及其确立.法制与社会,2006(11)：232等。
[6] Emmanuel Gaillard, Convention d'arbitrage, in Juris Classeur:Droit International Fasc.586-5, H 49,50(1994); see also E. Gaillard and J. Savage (eds.),Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration *f$_ 660 et seq., Kluwer (1999).
[7] Fouchard,Gaillard and Goldman, International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International,1999:400.
[8][美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法.邓正来译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：486.
[9]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[10] Walther Habscheid, Das Problem der Kompetenz-Kompetenz des Schiedsgerichts,78 SCHWEIZE. JURISTENZEITUNG 321(1982).
[11]Gaillard Enmmanuel, "The Negative Effect of Competence-Competence," Mealey's International Arbitration Report, 2002(1):27.
[12] Yves Derains & Eric A. S Guide to the New ICC Rules of Arbitration, Kluwer Law International,1998:5.
[13]《欧洲公约》于1961年4月21日在日内瓦签署,到2002年10月已经有28个国家加入该公约。参见http://www.jurisint.org/pub/01/en/153.htm.
[14] ADAM SAMUEL, JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN,DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS, U.S. AND WEST GERMAN LAW 178 (1989).
[15]JEAN-FRANCOIS POUDRET & SEBASTIEN BESSON, DROIT COMPARE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL 407 (2002).
[16]目前,下述区域己根据《示范法》颁布仲裁立法：亚美尼亚(2006)、澳大利亚(1991)、奥地利(2005)、阿塞拜疆(1999)、巴林(1994)、孟加拉国(2001)、白俄罗斯(1999)、保加利亚(2002)、柬埔寨(2006)、加拿大(1986)、智利(2004)、中国：香港特别行政区和澳门特别行政区(1996)、克罗地亚(2001)、塞浦路斯、丹麦(2005)、埃及(1996)、爱沙尼亚(2006)、德国(1998)、希腊(1999)、危地马拉(1995)、匈牙利(1994)、印度(1996)、伊朗伊斯兰共和国(1997)爱尔兰(1998)、日本(2003)、约旦(2001)、肯尼亚(1995)、立陶宛(1996)、前南斯拉夫的马其顿共和国(2006)、马达加斯加(1998)、马耳他(1995)、墨西哥(2005) 新西兰(1996)、尼加拉瓜(2005)、尼日利亚(1990)、挪威(2004)、阿曼(1997)、巴拉圭(2002)、菲律宾(2004)、波兰共和国(2005)、大韩民国(1999)、俄罗斯联邦(1993)、塞尔维亚(2006)、新加坡(2001)、西班牙(2003)、斯里兰卡(1995)、泰国(2002)、突尼斯(1993)、土耳其(2001)、乌克兰(1994)、大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国：苏格兰(1990)和联合王国的海外领地百慕大；美利坚合众国：加利福尼亚州(1996)、康涅狄格州(2000)伊利诺斯州(1998)、路易斯安那州、俄勒冈州和德克萨斯州；乌干达(2000)、委内瑞拉(玻利瓦尔共和国1(1998)、赞比亚(2000)和津巴布韦(1996)。另外,下述区域已根据《1985年国际商事仲裁示范法以及2006年修正案》颁布仲裁立法：爱尔兰(2008)、毛里求斯(2008)、新西兰(2007)、秘鲁(2008)和斯洛文尼亚(2008)。UNCITRAL website, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration_status.html.
[17] RULES OF ARBITRATION, art.6, [paragraph] 4,http://www.iccwbo.org/court/english/arbitration/pdf documents/ rules/rules_arb_english.pdf.
[18]其他许多国际仲裁机构的仲裁规则也都对自裁管辖原则积极效力作出了明确的规定,另外参见世界知识产权组织仲裁与调解中心《1994年仲裁规则》第36条,美国仲裁协会《国际仲裁规则》第15条,伦敦国际仲裁院1998年仲裁规则第14条,等。
[19] Howard M.Holtzman & Joseph E. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration:Legislative History and Commentary 216(1989).
[20] Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.(http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf).
[21]Shirin Philipp, Is the Suprem Court Bucking the Trend? First Options v. Kaplan in Light of European Reform Initiatives in Arbitration Law,14 Boston University International Law Journal 119(Spring,1996).
[22] Christian Herrera Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompentenz-Kompendenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spanish's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 The American Review of International Arbitration 397(2000).
[23]宋连斌.国际商事仲裁管辖权研究.北京：法律出版社,2000：93.
[24] Christian Herrera Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompentenz-Kompendenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spanish's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 The American Review of International Arbitration 397(2000).
[25] Peter Gross, Competence of Competence:An English View,8 ARB.INT'L 205(1992).
[26] Fed. Trib., Feb.6,1990, Deutsche Babcock AG v. House of Trade and Contracting Co.,1990 BULL. ASA 163.
[27]参见英国《1996年仲裁法》第32条第2款。
[28] SMG Swedish Machine Group v. Swedish Machine Group,Inc.,No.90 C 6081,1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 780 (N.D.ILL. Jan. 4,1991);XVIII Y.B. COM. ARB.457(193).
[29] Fouchard,Gaillard and Goldman, "International Commercial Arbitration," Kluwer Law International,1999:400.
[30]薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京：法律出版社,2003,1088.
[31]Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary. ST. Paul, MINN,1999, Seventh edition,579.
[32] John H. Wigmore. A Students' Textbook of the Law of Evidence,1935,237.
[33] Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.(http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf).
[27]冯克菲.管辖权/关系圈理论及其在我国的实践.仲裁与法律.2002,1.
[35] Schmitthoff, The Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in Schultsz & Van den Berg ed., The Art of Arbitration,Essays on International Arbitration:Liber Amicortum Pieter Sanders,1982:285.
[36]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践.北京：法律出版社,2000：150.
[37]参见《示范法》第8条；《欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第6条第3款；法国《民事诉讼法》第1458条；韩国《仲裁法》第3条；荷兰《民事诉讼法典》第1022条；英国《1996年仲裁法》第9条等。
[38]William W. Park, The 2002 Freshfields Lecture--Arbitration's Protean Nature:The Value of Rules and The Risk of Discretion,19 ARB.INTL.279,280 (2003).
[39] THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU,CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION 3 (3d ed.2002).
[40] PAUL A. GELINAS, ARBITRATION CLAUSES:ACHIEVING EFFECTIVENESS, IN IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS 49 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed,1999).
[41]参见《示范法》第34条第1款；纽约公约第5条第1款。
[42]Anam Indus. Co.,Ltd. v. Twi Lite Int'l Inc.,No. C-96-2323 SI,1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16060(N.D. Cal. Oct 24,1996), also in YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 910-11 (1998).
[43] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 185(1981).
[44]W. MICHEAL REISMAN, SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION:BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 107 (1992).
[45]ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO.5,XTH INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CONGRESS. STOCKHOLM,21-29 MAY 1990 (A.J. van den Berg ed.,1991).
[46] M. Scott Donahey, Defending the Arbitration against Sabotage,13 J. INT'L ARB.93,110(1996).
[47]参见1998年国际商会仲裁规则第6条第2款。
[48]参见《示范法》第16条。
[49]参见1968年欧共体《民商事司法管辖权和判决执行公约》第23条。
[50] Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf.
[51]Swiss Fed. Trib.,14 May 2001,Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA v. Colon Container Terminal SA,2001(3) ASA Bull.555.
[52]《瑞士国际私法》第9条第1款“如果在国内涉诉的当事人因相同的目的在国外涉诉,若瑞士法院认为外国法院将在合理的时间内作出判决,而该判决可以在瑞士得到执行,那么瑞士法院可以中止国内的诉讼。”
[53]《元照英美法词典》将“一事不再理”解释为有合法管辖权的法院就案件作出终局判决后,在原当事人间不得就同一事项、同一诉讼标的、同一请求再次提起诉讼。法院作出的发生法律效力的判决是最终的决定。参见薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京：法律出版社,2003,1189.
[54] Swiss Fed. Trib.,14 May 2001,Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA v. Colon Container Terminal SA,2001(3) ASA Bull.562-563.
[55] Charles Poncet,'Swiss Parliament Removes Lis Pendens as an Obstacle to International Arbitrations in Switzerland', in 2006 World Arb.& Med. Rep.395.
[56] the report issued on 17 February 2006 by the Judicial Affairs Committee of the Swiss National Council,'Initiative parlementaire-Modification de l'art.186 de la loi federale sur le droit international prive-Rapport de la Commission des affaires juridiques du Conseil national du 17 fevrier 2006', Feuille federale No.21,30 May 2006, at 4469, available on line at www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2006/4469.pdf.
[57] Emmanuel Gaillard, Aspects philosophiques du droit de l'arbitrage international, forthcoming in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Yf 82 et seq. (2008).
[58]肖永平,胡永庆.法律选择中的当事人意思自治.法律科学.1997(5)：75.
[59]Charles Dumoulin(1500-1566).
[60]韩德培.国际私法.北京：北京大学出版社,2000：197.
[61]周清华、任宪龙.法官真意还是当事人真意—“默示意思自治”解析.法学杂志.2008(6)：26.
[62]程显峰.论国际商事仲裁的意思自治与司法监督：(硕士论文).北京：对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[63]吕岩峰.当事人意思自治原则论纲.中国国际司法与比较法年刊.北京：法律出版社,1999：53.
[64]尹田.论意思自治原则.政治与法律.1995(3)：38.
[65]屈广清、周清华、吴莉婧.论仲裁制度中的第三人.中国海商法年刊.2001(3)：230.
[66]屈广清周清华.国际民事程序法.长春：吉林大学出版社,2003：582.
[67]谢石松主编.商事仲裁法学.北京：高等教育出版社,2003：206.
[68]孙国华.法理学教程.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1994：94.
[69]严存生.法律的价值.太原：山西人民出版社,1991：28.
[70]乔克欲,黎晓平.法的价值论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1991年版：40.
[71][日]川岛武宜.现代化与法(中译本).北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994年版：246.
[72][美]培里等.机制和评价(中译本).北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989年版：3.
[73][美]博登海默.法理学、法律哲学与法律方法.邓正来译,北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2004年版：330.
[74]乔克欲,黎晓平.法的价值论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1991年版：42.
[75]崔健国.民事诉讼程序的定位.政法论坛.1995(3)：62.
[76][美]理查德·A·波斯纳著.苏兆康译.法律的经济分析(上、下册).北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年版：156.
[77]戴文礼.公平论.北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：41.
[78][美]乔·萨托利.民主新论.北京：东方出版社,1993：340.
[79][美]哈特.法律的概念.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996：157.
[80][美]彼德·斯坦,约翰·普德.王献评译.西方社会的法律价值.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1989：21.
[81][美]理查德·A·波斯纳著.苏兆康译.法律的经济分析.(上、下册).北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年版：156.
[82]张文显.20世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,1996：130.
[83][美]博登海默.法理学——法哲学及其方法.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：385.
[84] New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Symposium on Arbitration in the Securities Industry, Foreword, Fordham Law Review, Vol. LXII, April 1995, No.5, pp.1501转引自赵秀文著.国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究.北京：北京大学出版社.2002：4.
[851[英]施米托夫著.国际贸易法文选.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993：79.
[86]周清华,李海跃.以仲裁的价值取向为视角解析CIETAC 2005年仲裁规则.辽宁大学学报哲学社会科学版.2007(3)：147.
[87] Jean-Francois Poudret, Le droit applicable a la convention d'arbtrage, in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT--ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS, ASA SPECIAL SERIES, NO.8 23(1994).
[88] Klaus Peter Berger, International Arbitral Practice and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 46 AM. J. COMP. L.129,131(1998).
[89] Catherine A. Rogers, Context and Institutional Structure in Attorney Regulation:Constructing an Enforcement Regime for International Arbitration,39 STAN.J. INT'L L.1,14 (2003).
[90] William Tetley, Q.C., A Canadian Looks at American Conflict of laws Theory and Practice, Especially in the Light of the American Legal and Social Systems (Corrective vs. Distributive Justice),38 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.299,322 (1999).
[91]MARTIN HUNTER ET AL., THE FRESHFIELDS GUIDE TO ARBITRATION AND ADR:CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS 142(1993).
[92]中国国际商会仲裁研究所编译.国际商事仲裁文集(中英文对照).北京：中国对外经济贸易出版社,1998年版：40,278.
[93]赵秀文.论仲裁条款独立原则.法学研究.2000,19(4)：69.
[94] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 199 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[95] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 214 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[961]Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.395,403-04 (1967).
[97]Hecht v. Busiman's, Cass. le civ., July 4,1972, reprinted in 99 JOURNAL DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL 843(1972).
[98] Cass., Sept.17,1947, n.1570, reprinted in GIORGIO BERNINI, ITALY-AD INFORMANDUM, INT'L. HANDBOOK ON COMM. ARB.SUPPL.17.(1994) (on file with author).
[99] Berthold Goldman, The Complementary Roles of Judges and Arbitrators in Ensuring that International Commercial Arbitration is Effective, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION:60 YEARS OF ICC ARBITRATION, A LOOK AT THE FUTURE 257,263(1984).
[100] THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU, CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION 20 (3d ed.2002).
[101]William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INT'L 137,154(1996).
[102] CA Colmar,Nov.29,1968, Impex v. P.A.Z.,JCP, Ed.G., Pt.Ⅱ.No.16,246(1970).
[103] Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration in the United States,68.
[104] William Park, Determining Arbitral Jurisdiction:Allocation of Tasks Between Courts and Arbitrators,8 Am Rev. Int'l Arb.133,142-143(1997).
[105] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40.
[106] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York on June 10,1958.
[107]UNCITRAL, Status of 1958-Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html.
[108] PAUL FRIEDLAND, ARBITRATION CLAUSES FOR INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS (2000).
[109] Martin Gusy, The History and Significance of the New York Convention,4 VINDOBONA J. INT'L COM. L.& ARB. 147,147(2000).
[110] United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the 23rd Meeting, U. N. Doc. E/CONF.26/SR.23 (Sept.12,1958), reprinted in INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:NEW YORK CONVENTION III. C.202,211 (Giorgio Gaja ed.,1978).
[111]Pieter Sanders, The History of the New York Convention, in ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO.9, IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS:40 YEARS OF APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION 11,12-13 (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed.,1998); Martin Domke, Comment, The United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration,53 AM. J. INT'L L.414(1959).
[112] RENE DAVID,L'ARBITRAGE DANS LE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 290 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1982).
[113] THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU,CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION 20 (3d ed.2002).
[114] MICHAEL REISMAN ET AL., INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, CASES, MATERIALS AND NOTES ON THE RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES 524 (2001).
[115] ICC Award, December 7,2001,no.10623,21 ASA BULLETIN 82,90 (2003).
[116] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 402 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[117] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 173(1981);KLAUS PETER BERGER, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ARBITRATION 133(1993).
[118] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 123 (1981).
[119] New York Convention, art. V(I)(a).
[120] Gerold Herrmann, The Arbitration Agreement as the Foundation of Arbitration and Its Recognition by the Courts, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN A CHANGING WORLD 42 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed.,1994).
[121]下文将对此详加论述。
[122] Gerold Herrmann, The Arbitration Agreement as the Foundation of Arbitration and Its Recognition by the Courts, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN A CHANGING WORLD 45-46 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed.,1994).
[123] ALAN REDFERN & MARTIN HUNTER, LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 7 (3d ed.1999).
[124] Philip J. McConnaughay, The Scope of Autonomy in International Contracts and Its Relation to Economic Regulation and Development,39 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.2001:595,608-609.
[125] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 135(1981).
[126] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 135(1981).
[127] William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform,36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1241,1248 (2003).
[128] William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform,36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1262-1263 (2003).
[129] William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform,36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1263 (2003)
[130]在First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan案中,514 U.S.938(1995),美国联邦最高法院支持了上诉审法院的裁定,认为法庭应当独立地决定仲裁庭是否对争议有管辖权,因为关于可仲裁事项问题应由法院而不是仲裁庭首先作出裁定。
[131]在Filanto v. Chilewich Int'l Corp.,984 F.2d 58,60 (2d Cir.1993)案中,法院指出独立诉讼是指原告请求法院裁定禁止仲裁或者强令仲裁或者裁定争议是可仲裁的或者是不可仲裁的,没有当事人请求其他救济,例如关于争议事项的实体问题的救济,终止这种诉讼的裁定—经作出就可以立即提起上诉。
[132]《1961年欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第6条第1款规定：“仲裁协议的一方当事人基于存在仲裁协议这一事实,向已经受理仲裁协议项下争议的法院提出管辖权异议,根据禁止反言原则,应在实体答辩之前或者同时提出,前提视受诉法院地法律将这种异议视为程序问题还是实体问题而定。”
[133]然而,不必高估这个问题,就目前已经报道的关于《纽约公约》的判例来看,尚未有判例提及就仲裁协议的效力提出异议的时间限制问题。
[134] See discussion on Italian case law infra subpart Ⅳ.E.
[135] SIR MICHAEL J. MUSTILL & STEWARD C. BOYD, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN ENGLAND 475-76(2d ed.1989).
[136]责令当事人仲裁解决其争议具有典型的普通法系的特点,在大陆法系也常常采纳这一做法。“法院只是拒绝行使管辖权,允许当事人开始仲裁程序”参见KLAUS PETER BERGER, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ARBITRATION 327,1993.
[137] Collins v. Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc.,2 F. Supp.2d 1465,1468 (M.D.Ga.1998).
[138]“责令当事人提交仲裁”无法得到确切的解释,因为《纽约公约》将这个问题留给各缔约国国内法解决,由国内法决定为了达到此目的而应采取的措施。
[139]《示范法》以及所有将《示范法》转化为国内法的仲裁法都规定了在当事人没有或者拒绝指定仲裁员时由法院指定仲裁员的机制。《示范法》第11条规定： (1)除非各方当事人另有协议,否则不应以所属国籍为由排除任何人作为仲裁员。(2)各方当事人可以自由地就指定一名仲裁员或者数名仲裁员的程序达成协议,但是应符合本条第4款和第5款的规定。(3)如果未达成上述协议,则(a)在仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成时,每一方当事人应各自指定一名仲裁员,第三名仲裁员由已经指定的两名仲裁员指定；如果一方当事人在收到对方当事人要求其指定仲裁员的 通知之后30天内未能指定仲裁员,或者如果被指定的两名仲裁员未能在他们被指定之后30天内就第三名仲裁员达成协议,那么应一方当事人的请求,由本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构指定。(b)在仲裁庭由一名仲裁员组成时,如果双方当事人未能就独任仲裁员的人选达成协议,那么应一方当事人的请求,由本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构指定。(4)若双方当事人就指定仲裁员的程序达成了协议,则(a)一方当事人没有按照约定的程序指定仲裁员,或者(b)双方当事人或者已经指定的两名仲裁员没有按照约定的程序指定仲裁员,或者(c)第三方当事人包括机构没有履行约定的程序委托其行使的任何职能,任何一方当事人均可以请求本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构采取必要措施,除非关于指定仲裁员程序的约定规定了指定仲裁员的其他方法。(5)本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构就本法第3条或者第4条委托其的事项作出的裁定不允许上诉。在指定仲裁员时,法院或者其他机构应适当考虑双方当事人协议中就仲裁员资格作出的任何要求以及为了确保指定独立、公正的仲裁员可能需要考虑的因素；在指定独任仲裁员或者第三名仲裁员时,应考虑指定与双方当事人不同国籍的仲裁员的可能性。
[140]参见《纽约公约》第2条第3款。
[141]参见《纽约公约》第2条第1款。
[142]参见《纽约公约》第2条第3款。
[143]法官内尔·嘉柏伦认为,“首先提一个问题可能有助于理解,即为什么对仲裁协议有书面形式要件的要求?我们都知道可以口头形式达成实体合同,并且口头的实体合同可以达到强制执行。因此,我有一个无法理解的问题,当一方当事人向另一方当事人发去了一份包含仲裁条款的合同,另一方当事人完全依照该合同行事未作任何修改,如果该合同不是书面的,为什么另一方当事人一方面完全可以置仲裁条款于不顾,另一方面却可以主张合同中的价格条款有效,反过来以违约为由提起诉讼。”Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB. INT'L 29(1996)有学者对法官内尔·嘉柏伦的观点持批评意见,认为放松《示范法》第7条关于书面形式的要求对于仲裁协议来说相当于打开了潘多拉的盒子。对于《示范法》第7条规定的明确的经签署的书面仲裁协议,法院正在面临困境。如果放宽仲裁协议的定义将发生什么情况?只要看一看美国法院就可以找到答案,美国法院越来越倾向于采纳替代的方法比如贸易惯例和工业习惯来判断仲裁协议的效力。适用工业习惯的结果只能是损害商事仲裁的完整性。
[144] DOMENICO DI PIETRO & MARTIN PLATTE, ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARDS:THE NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958,2001:81.
[145] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 156(1981).
[146] Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB.INT'L 30(1996).
[147] Albert van den Berg,Consolidated Commentary New York Convention, Formal Validity, Uniform Rule and Municipal Law, in YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 584-587(2003).
[148] Emmanuel Gaillard, Validity and Scope of Arbitration Agreements,220 N.Y.L.J.3(1998); VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 147 (1981).伊曼纽尔·盖拉德(Emmanuel Gaillard),国际仲裁研究院院长,被公认为世界最权威的国际仲裁法专家,曾用英文和法文写下大量的国际仲裁法各个领域的研究论文。盖拉德教授于巴黎第十二大学教授国际仲裁法和国际私法,在250多个仲裁中分别担任过仲裁员、辩护律师、和专家顾问。
[149] JULIAN D.M. LET, LOUKAS A. MISTELIS & STEFAN M. KROLL, COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 143 (2003).
[150] Yves Derains, The ICC Arbitral Process Part VIII, Choice of Law Applicable to the Contract and International Arbitration.6 ICC INT'L CT. OF ARB.BULL.10,16(1995).
[151]LEX MERCATORIA AND ARBITRATION:A DISCUSSION OF THE NEW LAW MERCHANT (Thomas E. Carbonneau ed.,1998);Michael Pryles, Application of the Lex Mercatoria in International Commercial Arbitration,18 MEALEY'S INT'L ARB.REPORT 21 (2003).
[152] John B. Tieder Jr.,Factors to Consider in the Choice of Procedural and Substantive Law in International Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.393(2003).
[153] G.W. HAIGHT, CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS:SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF RECORD OF UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE,27-28(1958).
[154]特征性履行原则产生于20世纪20、30年代的东欧和瑞士等国家,最早由瑞士学者施尼泽所提出。特征性履行理论(doctrine of characteristic performance of the typical performance),又称特征之债理论(doctrine of characteristic obligation)或特征性义务,是国际合同当事人未选择适用合同准据法时,根据合同的特征性质确定合同法律适用的一种理论和方法。所谓特征性履行,就是指双务合同中代表合同本质特征的当事人履行合同的行为,合同准据法应为负责特征性履行义务的当事人的住所地法或惯常居所地法,或者当事人营业所所在地法。参见章尚锦主编.国际私法.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000(3)：250.
[155] Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligation, June 19,1980,1980 O.J. (C 27) 36 art. 1(2)(d).
[156] Piero Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses:Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, at 200.
[157] GIORGIO BERNINI, L'ARBITRATO:DIRITTO INTERNO CONVENZIONI INTERNAZIONALI 125(1993).
[158] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 287(1981).
[159] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 287-288(1981).
[160]参见《欧洲公约》第6条第1款。
[161]GIUDITTA CORDERO MOSS, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 280 n.707(1999).
[162] Amy J. Schmitz, Refreshing Contractual Analysis of ADR Agreements by Curing Bipolar Avoidance of Modern Common Law,9 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV.1 (2004).
[163] Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c. n.218, art.4 [paragraph] 2(1995) (the Italian Private International Law).
[164] RENE DAVID, L'ARBITRAGE DANS LE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 191-99(1982).
[165]收集和发布关于《1980年联合国国际货物销售公约》法院判例的网上数据库主要包括(1)the Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law database is available at http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/database.html; (2) the Unilex database edited by Professor Michael Joachim Bonell of the University of Rome is available at http://www.unilex.info; (3) the UNCITRAL database featuring the CLOUT system is available at http://www.uncitral.org/english/clout/index.htm.
[166] Harold S. Crowter & Anthony G.V. Tobin, Ensuring that Arbitration Remains a Preferred Option for International Dispute Resolution--Some Practical Considerations,19 J. INT'L ARB.301 (2002).
[167] Christopher Drahozal, Of Rabbits and Rhinoceri:A Survey of Empirical Research on International Commercial Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.23,25 (2003).
[168]参见New York Convention Day, June 10,1958, Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the New York Convention-Experience and Prospects, U.N. Sales No. E.99.V.2(1958), available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/NYCDay-e.pdf.
[169] Working Group II.
[170]《在国际商事仲裁领域将来可能的工作：联合国国际贸易法委员会秘书处注释》
[171] Gerold Herrmann, Does the World Need Additional Uniform Legislation on Arbitration?,15 ARB.INT'L 216,236 (1999).
[172] Albert Jan van den Berg, Some Practical Questions Concerning the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, at 212-213 (United Nations ed,1995).
[173] William K. Slate II, The Culture Connection in International Commercial Arbitration,59 DISP. RESOL. J.1,13 (2004).
[174] Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its 35th Session, Supp. No.17, [paragraph] 243,U.N. Doc. A/57/17(June 17-28,2002).
[175] Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its Thirty-seventh Session, Introduction to the Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Sales Convention, [paragraphs] 17-18, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/562 (June 9,2004)
[176] Fritz Enderlein, Uniform Law and Its Application by Judges and Arbitrators, in INTERNATIONAL UNIFORM LAW IN PRACTICE 329 (Unidroit ed.,1988).
[177] Elizabeth H. Patterson, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods:Unification and the Tension between Compromise and Domination,22 STAN. J. INT'L L.263,283(1986).
[178]Bernini,Voices of International Practice,in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, at 226(1982).
[179]JEAN-FRANCOIS POUDRET & SEBASTIEN BESSON,DROIT COMPARE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL 443 (2002).
[180] PHILIPPE FOUCHARD, L'ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL(1965).
[181]MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 516 (1990).
[182] JEAN ROBERT, L'ARBITRAGE. DROIT INTERNE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 102 (6th ed.1993).
[183] MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 83 (1990).
[184] MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 79-80(1990).
[185] Cour de cassation [Cass.le civ.] [highest court of origninal jurisdiction], June 28,1989, J.C.P., Ⅱ,20205,111 clunet 598.
[186]Cour de cassation [Cass 2e civ.] [highest court of orginal jurisdiction], Jan.17,1996, in REV. ARB.228 (1996).
[187] Cour de cassation [Cass. le civ.] [highest court of origninal jurisdiction],June 28,1989, J.C.P.,Ⅱ,20205,111 clunet 598.
[188] Philippe Fouchard, Note, REV. ARB.653(1989).
[189] CA Paris, Dec.8,1988, REV. ARB.150(1990).
[190] Charles Jarrosson, Note sous Cour d'Appel de Paris,8 December 1988, REV. ARB.157(1990).
[191] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Cass. le civ., Nov.9,1993,REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE.1994,108.
[192] TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO Ⅲ & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 87 (2d ed.2003).
[193] MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 84-85(1990).
[194] Christian H. Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 AM. REV. INT'L ARB.397,407-408 (2000).
[195] JEAN ROBERT, L'ARBITRAGE. DROIT INTERNE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 103 (6th ed.1993).
[196] Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, lc ch., Dec.7,1994, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1996,245, note Jarrosson.
[197] William W. Park, Text and Context in International Dispute Resolution,15 B.U. Int'l L.J.191,202 (1997).
[198] Otto Sandrock, To Continue Nationalizing or to De-Nationalize? That is Now the Question in International Arbitration, 12 AM. REV. INT'L ARB.301,308 (2001).
[199]同上。
[200]法国《民事诉讼法典》第1502条规定,“对于准予承认或执行仲裁裁决的判决仅在下列情况下可提起上诉：1.仲裁员在没有仲裁协议或仲裁协议无效或仲裁协议过期的情况下就争议作出裁决；2.仲裁庭组成是不当或者独任仲裁员指定不当；3.仲裁员越权作出仲裁裁决；4.违反正当程序；5.承认或执行违反国际公共政策。”
[201]JEAN ROBERT & THOMAS CARBONNEAU,THE FRENCH LAW OF ARBITRATION at II:2-10,2-11. (Matthew Bender ed.,1983).
[202] Cour de cassation [Cass.le civ.] [highest court of original jurisdiction],July 4,1972, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1974,89, note Philippe Fouchard.
[203]法国关于仲裁的法律规则最与众不同的特点规定在《民事诉讼法典》第2061条,该条规定“如果法律另有规定则仲裁条款无效”。然而,这种限制仅适用于法国《民法典》项下的仲裁协议,因为法国还制定了《商法典》但是《商法典》没有类似的规定。
[204]John J. Barcelo III, Who Decides the Arbitrators'Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1124-1125 (2003).
[205] John J. Barcelo III, Who Decides the Arbitrators'Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1125 (2003).
[206] John J. Barcelo III, Who Decides the Arbitrators'Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1124 (2003).
[207] Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris,le ch., Dec.13,1975,104 JOURNAL DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL 1977,106.
[208] INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD 3 (Stephanie Marrie & Aloke Ray eds.2004).
[209] Filip D. Ly, Commercial Law as a Refuge from Contract Law:A Comparative and Uniform Law Perspective,45 WAYNE L. REV.1825,1836 (2000).
[210] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Cass. le civ., Dec.20,1993, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1994,116,note Helene Gaudemet-Tallon.
[211]Cour de cassation [Cass.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Cass. le civ., Dec.20,1993, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1994,116,118,note Helene Gaudemet-Tallon.
[212] Huber, Arbitration Clause "by Reference," in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT-ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS,ASA SPECIAL SERIES,NO.878-888(1994).
[213] United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the 23rd Meeting, U. N. Doc. E/CONF.26/SR.23 (Sept.12,1958), reprinted in INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:NEW YORK CONVENTION III. C.at I.B.3(Giorgio Gaja ed.,1978),表明“在国际贸易中,仲裁协议通常是通过援引包含仲裁条款的格式合同的方式达成的”。
[214] Dr. Peter Schlosser, Report on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol on its Interpretation by the Court of Justice,1979 O.J. (C 59) 71 (Mar.5,1979).
[215] James M. Hosking, The Third Party Non-Signatory's Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration:Doing Justice Without Destroying Consent,4 PEPP. DISP. RESOL. L.J.469,542-543 (2004).
[216] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 232 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[217]9 U.S.C.[subsection] 201-208(2006).
[218] 9 U.S.C. [section] 205.该条接下来详细规定了法院将争议提交仲裁时应遵守的程序。
[219] David L. Threlkeld & Co. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd.,923 F.2d 245,250 (2d Cir.1991). [220] 417 U.S.506(1974).
[221]473 U.S.614(1985).
[222] Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427(1953).
[223] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,61617(1985).
[224] American Safety Equip. Corp. v. J. P. McGuire & Co,391 F.2d 821,825 (2d Cir.1968) (citing Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427,444(1953)).
[225] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrystler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,621(1985).
[226] citing and relying upon Sherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519-520 (1974).
[227] Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1(1972).
[228] New York Convention,Art. V(2)(b).
[229] New York Convention, art. V.
[230] Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno,684 F.2d 184,186-87(1st Cir.1982).
[231]DOMENICO DI PIETRO & MARTIN PLATTE, ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARDS:THE NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958,2001:56-61.
[232] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 14(1981).
i2331关于美国涉及商事保留和《纽约公约》第1条第3款项下商事概念的判例,可参见下列判例,在Francisco v. Stolt Achievement, No. Civ.A.00-3532,2001 WL 290172 (E.D. La. Mar.23,2001)案中,法院认定,船员合同是应适用《纽约公约》的商事关系；在Henry v. Murphy, No. M-82,2002 WL 24307 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.8,2002)案中,法院认定,股东协议是《纽约公约》项下的商事关系；在印度,印度最高法院于1994年2月10日认定,提供咨询服务的协议是商事性质的(参见YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 710-12(1997));孟买高级法院1981年在Indian Organic Chems v. Chemtex Fibres案中(参见YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 371-372(1983)),则将商事保留作了狭义解释,强调只有一项特别的成文法规定涉及到某个特定的法律关系而且将其界定为商事性质时,该事项才能被视为商事的。
[234]9 U.S.C. [section] 202.
[235] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 17(1981).
[236] Intertec Contracting A/S v. Turner Steiner Int'l, S.A., No.98-CV-9116,2000 WL 709004 (S.D.N.Y. May 31,2000), aff'd,6 F. App'x 61 (2d Cir.2001).
[237] Jennifer L. Pilla, Note, Agreeing on Where to Disagree:Jain v. De Mere and International Arbitration Agreements,21 N.C.J. INTL L.& COM. REG.421.
[238] 9 U.S.C. [section] 2.
[239] GARY BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 334-335 (2d ed.2001).
[240] GARY BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 350 (2d ed.2001).
[241]William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INT'L 1282(1996)。
[242] GARY BORN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 332 (2d ed.2001).
[243] William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INT'L 1248-1249(1996).
[244] 460 U.S.1(1983).
[2451465 U.S.1(1984).
[246] Linda R. Hirshman, The Second Arbitration Trilogy:The Federalization of Arbitration Law,71 VA. L. REV.1305, 1378(1985).
[247]482 U.S.483 (1987).
[248] GARY BORN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 352 (2d ed.2001).
[249] First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938,947(1995);Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc.19 F.3d 1503 (3d Cir.1994).
[250] Barcelo, supra note 35, at 1121.
[251]Susan L. Karamanian, The Road to the Tribunal and Beyond:International Commercial Arbitration and United States Courts,34 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV.20(2002).
[252]关于相反的观点,参见Reuben, supra note 291,at 870-79(关于联邦法律系统不再采纳仲裁条款独立原则并且应逐步消失的建议)“正如我们所看到的,《联邦仲裁法》法律解释的传统规则和立法历史并没有强制规定仲裁条款独立原则,而且仲裁条款独立原则也不是实体合同法的规定。相反,正如罗奥教授论证的,仲裁条款独立原则仅仅是“主要根据功能性的考量”而作出的一个司法政策选择。”麦克尼尔教授也认为,这种司法政策选择可以走另一条路：“什么都无法阻止审理PrimaPaint案的法院认定仲裁协议独立于包含该仲裁协议的主合同。”随着近三十五年实施仲裁条款独立原则带来的好处、“新仲裁”的产生以及法院自身明显的关于可仲裁性问题向真实合意的倾斜,法院应重新回顾该政策选择上,并且通过拒绝仲裁条款独立原则重建议会于1925年作出的政策选择,将那些双方当事人没有“明确无误地”给予仲裁庭解决的可仲裁性问题返回法院解决。
[253]6 P.3d 669,688-94(Cal.2000).
[254]Jeffrey W. Stempel, Arbitration, Unconscionability and Equilibrium:The Return of Unconscionability Analysis As a Counterweight to Arbitration Formalism,19 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL.757,762-63 (2004).
[255] First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938,944(1995).
[256] Susan L. Karamanian, The Road to the Tribunal and Beyond:International Commercial Arbitration and United States Courts,34 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV.62(2002).
[257]参见Cass., sez. un.,13 Dec.1971,n.3620, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 190(1976),该案列举了意大利最高法院裁定《意大利民法典》第1341条和第1342条效力优先于《纽约公约》第2条第2款的很多判例；另参见Cass., sez. un.,25 May 1976, n.1877, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 278(1978),在该案中,意大利最高法院将《纽约公约》第2条第2款解读为,要求“双方当事人签署的或者包含在互换函电中的”提交仲裁的特别协议,因为在该案中合同格式上打印的仲裁条款中找不到这种“特别协议”,并且找不到双方当事人的签字,最高法院判定仲裁协议无效,意大利法院对该案有管辖权。
[258]Cass. (I), sez. un.,22 May 1995, n.5601,YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 611(1996).
[259] Cass.,2 marzo 1996, n.1649, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 734(1997).
[260] Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c., n.218, art.4, [paragraph] 2(1995).
[261]《意大利民法典》第1341条规定：“1.一方当事人事前准备的标准条件,如果另一方当事人在缔结合同时知道该标准条件或者通过合理的谨慎应当知道,则该标准条件有效；2.无论如何,对事前准备标准条件的一方当事人有利的条款、限制责任的条款…仲裁条款或者减轻司法机构权力的条款,除非以书面方式特别加以批准,否则一概无效。”Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c., n.262, art.1341(1995).
[262]《意大利民法典》第1342条规定：“为了以统一的方式规制某些合同关系,合同都是通过签署由一方当事人事前准备的格式文件而达成,如果有新添加的条款,而新添加的条款与格式文件中原来的条款不一致,则以新添加的条款为准。”Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c.,n.262, art.1342(1995).
[263] Cass.,18 April 2003, n.6349.
[264]Cass.,28 October 1993, n.10704, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 739(1995).
[265] Cass., sez. un.,10 March 2000, n.58, XXVI YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 816 (2001).
[266] Supreme Court, sez. Un.,28 July 1998, n.7398, Foro It.11998, under Arbitrato n.68.
[267] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 199(1981).
[268] ADAM SAMUEL, JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN, DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS, U.S. AND WEST GERMAN LAW 96(1989).
[269] ADAM SAMUEL,JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN, DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS, U.S. AND WEST GERMAN LAW 1918 (1989).
[270] TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO III & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 89 (2d ed.2003).
[271]W. MICHEAL REISMAN,SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION:BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 113(1992).
[272] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,638(1985).
[273] Mayer Pierre, "laU" 1989-v P.327 AT P.339.
[274] Judgment of 18 May 1971,Case. Civ. Ire,1971 Bull.Civ.1,No.161,p.134(Fr.);also,Carlos E. Alfaro & Flavia Guimarey, op. cit.,p.419转引自赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[275] CA Paris, Mar.9,1972, Lefrere v. SA Les Petroles Pursan,,1972 RTD COM.344.
[276] Dimolitsa, Antonias, Separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 years of Application of the New York Convention,International Council for Commercial Arbitration, 1999:238.
[277] Civil 1st,25 Apr 2006, Rev. Arb.79 (2007).
[278]1983年《法国民事诉讼法典》第1458条第2款规定,“如果当事人尚未将有关仲裁协议效力的争议提交仲裁庭,法院也应宣告其无管辖权,除非仲裁协议明显地无效。”
[279]《法国民事程序法典》第1502条规定：就国际商事仲裁裁决而言,“如果不存在有效的仲裁协议或者仲裁员是根据无效的或者失效的仲裁协议作出仲裁裁决……”,那么法国法院将拒绝承认与执行。
[280]明显地不能实行这个例外并没有规定在第1458条第2款中,而是由法国最高院在判例中确立的。参见Supreme Court, Civil 1st,16 Oct 2001,Bull Civ.I,254; Rev. Arb.919 (2002).
[281]Philippe Fouchard,"La cooperation du President du Tribunalde Grande Instance s l'arbitrage,"Rev. Arb.1985, p.27.
[282] Herrera Petrus, Christian, "Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's Arbitration Act,"The American Review of International Arbitration,vol.11,2000:.408.
[283]如示范法第16条第3款；美国仲裁协会2001年仲裁规则第15条第3款；伦敦国际仲裁院1998年仲裁规则第23条第3款。
[284] Emmanuel Gaillard,'L'effet negatif de la competence-competence', in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution-Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner at at 391 et seq, ICC Pub. No.693 (2005). the decision of the French Cour de Cassation (Ire civ.) of 5 January 1999, Zanzi v. de Coninck,1999(2) Rev. arb.262; the decisions of the French Cour de Cassation (Ire civ.) of 1 December 1999,2000(1)Rev. arb.98.
[285] Cass, le civ.,26 June 2001,2001(3) Rev. arb.529.
[286] Cass. le civ.,7 June 2006, Copropriete Maritime Jules Verne v. American Bureau of Shipping,2006(4) Rev. orb.945, at 946-947.
[287] CA Paris,4 December 2002, American Bureau of Shipping v. Coproprietd Maritime Jules Verne,2003(4) Rev. arb. 1286, with note by E. Gaillard at 1290,18(12) Int'l Arb. Rep. D-1(2003), ⅩⅩⅨ Y.B. Com. Arb.657 (2004).
[2881 Societe V 200 v Societe P roeject XJ 220 ITd et al.,Rev. arb.1996:235.
[289] Dimolitsa, Antonias, "Separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 years of Application of the New York Convention," International Council for Commercial Arbitration,1999: 239.
[290] The Similarity of aims in the American and French Legal System with respect to arbitrators's powers to determine their jurisdiction, report of ICCA Congress, Montreal May-June 2006:4.
[291]Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA DTF 121(1995) Ⅲ 38.
[292]《纽约公约》第2条第3款：如果缔约国的法院受理一个案件,而就这案件所涉及的事项,当事人已经达成本条意义内的协议时,除非该法院查明该项协议是无效的、未生效的或不能履行的,应该依一方当事人的请求,令当事人把案件提交仲裁。
[293] Park William W, "The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v Kaplan; What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz has crossed the Atlantic?" Arbitration International,LCIA, vol.12, no.2 1996:151.
[294] Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M. v. Banque X., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull.527;另见C.U. Mayer at 1996(3) ASA Bull.361.
[295]《1987年瑞士国际私法典》第7条第b款；《纽约公约》第2条第3款。
[296] Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull, at 531.
[297] Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull, at 532.
[298] Emmanuel Gaillard,'La reconnaissance, en droit suisse, de la seconde moitie du principe d'effet negatif de la competence-competence', in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution-Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner at H 319 et seq, ICC Pub. No.693 (2005);Andreas Bucher,'L'examen de la competence internationale par le juge suisse',2007 La semaine judiciaire 153, in particular at 173 et seq.
[299] Jean-Francois Poudret,'Exception d'arbitrage et litispendance en droit suisse-Comment departager le juge et l'arbitre?', 25(2) ASA Bull.230 (2007); Jean-Francois Poudret, Note following the Swiss Federal Tribunal's decision of 14 May 2001 in Fomento de Construcciones,2001(4) Rev. arb.835.
[300]Case no.4p.284-1995, decision of 17 August 1995 by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
[301]Karrer, Piere and Kalin-Nauer, Claudia,Is there a Fvour Iurisdictionis Arbitri? Standards of Review of Arbitral Jurisdiction Decisions in Switzerland,Journal of International Arbitration,13(3),1996:31-38.
[302] European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961,484 U.N.T.S.349, art. VI(3)(1961).
[303] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN,ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION [paragraphs] 674 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[304]《法国民事程序法典》第1458条。
[305] New York Convention, art.I(1).
[306] ALBERT J. VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958 155,169(1981).
[307] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler,473 U.S.614,615(1985); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 (1974).
[308]1987年瑞士国际私法典第191条。
[309]参见第6条和第34条第2款。
[310] HOWARD M. HOLTZMANN & JOSEPH E. NEUHAUS, A GUIDE TO THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMENTARY 303(1989).
[311]《纽约公约》第2条第3款规定“如果缔约国的法院受理了一个案件,而该案当事人已经就该案涉及的争议达成了本条意义上的仲裁协议,那么除非法院查明该仲裁协议无效、失效或者不能履行,否则应该依一方当事人的请求,责令当事人将该案提交仲裁。”
[312] ALBERT J. VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958 155(1981).
[313] FUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN, ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION [paragraph] 675 (citing at n.136 Swiss Fed. Trib., Apr.29,1996, Fondation M. v. Banque X.,1996 BULL. ASA 527, and the note by C.U. Mayer at 361;1996 REV. SUISSE DR. INT. ET DR. EUR.586, and observations by F. Knoepfler).Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999.
[314] Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of Its Eighteenth Session, U.N. GAOR,40th Sess. Supp. No.17, Annex, at 1 U.N. Dec. A/40/17(1985), reprinted in 1 MODEL ARB.L. Q. REP.101,134 (1995).
[315]Pacific Int'l Lines Ltd. v. Tsinlien Metals & Minerals Co.,18 Y.B. INT'L ARB.180,185-186(S.C.H.K.1992).
[316] Rio Algom Ltd. v. Sammi Steel Co.,18 Y.B. INT'L ARB.166,170-171 (Ont. Ct. Justice 1991).
[317]UNCITRAL,Status of 1985-UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitratibn/1985Model_arbitration_status.html
[318] Klaus P. Berger, The New German Arbitration Law in International Perspective,26 FORUM INTERNATIONALE 8-9 (2000).
[319] A.Sanuel, Jurisdictional Problems in International Commercial Arbitration:a Study of Belgain, DUTCH, English, French, Swedish, Swiss.U.S. AND West German Law(1989),pp 179-189.
[320] Schlosser,Peter, The Competence of Arbitrators and of courts, Arbitration International 189,1992:199-200. See also Berger, Klaus Peter, International Commercial Arbitration,1993:359.
[321] Klaus P. Berger, Germany Adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law,1 INT'L ARB. L. REV.121,122(1998).
[322] Park, William W, report "An Arbitrator's Jurisdition to Determine Jurisdiction,"ICCA Congress, Montreal May-Hune 2006:66.
[323] Park, William W, report "An Arbitrator's Jurisdition to Determine Jurisdiction,"ICCA Congress, Montreal May-Hune 2006:67.
[324] Decision of 13 January 2005, reported NJW 16/2005 AT 1125.
[325] Peter Schlosser, La nouvelle legislation allemande sur l'arbitrage,1998 REV. ARB.291,298.
[326] German 2000/2. Recht und Praxis Shiedsgerichtsbarkeit 13.An abstract is punblished in www. Uncitral. org. case 373 MAL(art.16).
[327]《1996年仲裁法》第4条第2款。
[328]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第1款。
[329]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第2款。
[330]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第3款。
[331]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第4款。
[332]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第5款。
[333]英国《1996年仲裁法》第32条第2款。
[334] Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose & Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996:A Commentary, second edition, p166,Blackwell Science Ltd,2000.
[335][199]2 Lloyd's Rep.24.
[336] Report of The Commercial Court and Admiralty Court,2005-2006:10.
[337] Azov Shipping Co. v. Baltic Shipping Co.[1999]1 Lloyd's Rep.68 and[1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep.159; Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose & Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996:A Commentary, second edition, p300,Blackwell Science Ltd, 2000.
[338] Arbitration Act,1996, [section] 9(4) (Eng.), reprinted in 36 I.L.M.155(1997).
[339] Downing v. Al Tameer Establishment [2002] EWCA Civ721,.31;Al-Naimi v. Islamic Press Agency [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep.522,525;Law Debenture Trust Corp. Pic. Elektrim Finance BV [2005] EWHC1412, J 34 (Ch); Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2006] EWHC 2583,129 (Comm). See also Jan Paulsson,'Arbitration-Friendliness:Promises of Principle and Realities of Practice', paper presented at the International Financial Services London Conference:'Has LondonMet the Challenge?', London,1 December 2006.
[340] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40.
[341]《1996年仲裁法》第9条中止诉讼“(1)若仲裁协议项下的一方当事人被对方就仲裁协议项下的争议提起了诉讼(无论是本诉还是反诉),在该当事人(在向对方发出通知后)可以向受理诉讼的法院提出申请,请求法院中止有关上述事项的诉讼程序。(4)当事人依本条向法院提出申请,法院应中止诉讼,除非法院查明仲裁协议无效、失效或者不能实行。”
[342] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40, J 37.
[343] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40, J 135.
[344] International Dispute Resolution Centre,简称IDRC, http://www.idrc.co.uk.
[345] Bruce Harris, Report On The England Arbitration Act 1996, ICMA XVI Congress Papers, Printed in Singapore by The Print Lodge Pte Ltd,2007:7.
[346] Mr Paul Arditti, Ince and Co,Member of the Commercial Court Users'Committee.p20.2.
[347] First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938(1995).
[348] Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,537 U.S.79 (2002).
[349] NCITRAL Arbitration Rules G.A. Res.98, U.N. GAOR,21st Sess. Supp. No17, U.N. Doc. A.RES/31/98 art.21 (1976); American Arbitration Association International Rules of 2001,art.15 (2001),available at http://www.adr.org; London Court of International Arbitration Rules of 1998 art.23(1998), available at http://www.lcia-arbitration.com/lc.
[350] Willam Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INTL 137,147(1996).
[351]FOUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN, ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION [paragraphs] 658 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[352]Klaus P. Berger, Germany Adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law,1 INT'L ARB.L. REV.121,122(1998).
[353]韩健.论国际商事仲裁中的管辖权异议问题.中国国际私法与比较法年刊(第3卷).北京：法律出版社,2000：477-
[354]王勇.我国国际商事仲裁中的管辖树管辖权原则之再述评—兼与宁敏、宋连斌先生商榷.当代法学，2000(2).
[355]全国人大常委会法制工作委员会胡康生主任,2004年10月在纪念仲裁法颁布10周年大会上讲话摘录。
[356]参见我国《仲裁法》第14条。
[357]朱志国.中国仲裁基础.北京：警官教育出版社,1997：195.
[358]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002：37.
[359]杨玲.论仲裁机构的法律地位—兼谈我国仲裁法的修改.仲裁与法律.2005：53.
[360]乔欣.仲裁程序公正与权利保障——仲裁权研究.北京：法律出版社,2001：146.
[361]赵健.回顾与展望：世纪之交的中国国际商事仲裁.仲裁与法律.2001：35.
[362]王生长.适用CIETAC新规则进行仲裁.大律师网.http://www.chinalawyer.org.cn/xueshu/ShowConfArticle.asp?id=236.
[363]王生长.中国特色的仲裁管辖权决定制度—成就和问题.仲裁与法律.2003(5)：10.
[364]周清华,李海跃.以仲裁的价值取向为视角解析CIETAC 2005年仲裁规则.辽宁大学学报哲学社会科学版.2007(3)：148.
[365]参见法释[1998]27号,1998年10月21日最高人民法院审判委员会第1029次会议通过,1998年10月26日最高人民法院公告公布,自1998年11月5日起施行。
[366]参见法释[2006]7号,2005年12月26日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1375次会议通过,2005年8月236日最高人民法院公告公布,自2006年9月8日起施行。
[367]参见法发[1995]18号,2005年12月26日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1375次会议通过,1995年08月28日最高人民法院公告公布,自1995年08月28日起施行。
[368]高雅.试论国际商事仲裁协议的效力认定主体——兼评中国的立法与实践.法律研究,2005：11.
[369]王生长.中国特色的仲裁管辖权决定制度.仲裁与法律.2003,5：14.
[370]参见《示范法》第8条第2款；德国民事程序法第1032条第3款。
[371]William Park, The Arbitrator's Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction, in ICCA Congress Series No.13, International Arbitration 2006:Back to Basics 89.
[372] P. Fouchard, E. Gaillard & B. Goldman, On International Commercial Arbitration, in Title of the book para 682 (E. Gaillard & J. Savage eds.,1999).
[373] 215 F.3d 151 (2d Cir.2003).
[374] Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M. Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-16 (2003).
[375] Thomas Carbonneau, The Law and Practice of Arbitration,189 (2nd ed 2007); Fouchard, Gaillard & Goldman, supra note 2, at 650 et seq; Julian D. M. Lew, Mistelis & Kroll, supra note 2, at 14-13 et seq
[376]Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M.Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-13 (2003).
[377] Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M.Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-16 (2003).
[378] the recent Opinion of the Advocate General in the Case C85/07 Allianz SpA (formerly Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA) v. West Tankers (delivered on 4 September 2008), where is was rightly pointed out:" It is also not obvious why such examination [NB review of the validity of the arbitration agreement] should be reserved to the arbitral body alone."
[2]Schmitthoff, The Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in Schultsz & Van den Berg ed.,The Art of Arbitration, Essays on International Arbitration:Liber Amicortum Pieter Sanders, 1982:285.
[3]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践.北京：法律出版社,2000：150.
[4]William W. Park,The 2002 Fresh fields Lecture-Arbitration's Protean Nature:The Value of Rules and The Risk of Discretion,19 ARB. INT'L.279,280(2003).
[5]THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU, CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION,3d ed.2002:20.
[6]PAUL A.GELINAS, ARBITRATION CLAUSES:ACHIEVING EFFECTIVENESS,IN IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS 49 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed,1999).
[7]Anam Indus. Co.,Ltd. v. Twi Lite Int'l Inc.,No. C-96-2323 SI,1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16060(N.D. Cal.Oct 24,1996),also in YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 910-911(1998).
[8]ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 185(1981).
[9]W. MICHEAL REISMAN,SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION: BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 107(1992).
[10]ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO.5,XTH INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CONGRESS.STOCKHOLM,21-29 MAY 1990 (A. J. van den Berg ed.,1991)
[11]M. Scott Donahey, Defending the Arbitration against Sabotage,13 J. INT'L ARB.93,110 (1996).
[12][美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法.邓正来译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：486.
[13]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[14]Walther Habscheid, Das Problem der Kompetenz-Kompetenz des Schiedsgerichts,78 SCHWEIZE. JURISTENZEITUNG 321 (1982).
[15]Gaillard Enmmanuel,"The Negative Effect of Competence-Competence,"Mealey's International Arbitration Report,2002 (1):27.
[16]Yves Derains & Eric A. Schwartz. A guide to Ne ICC Rules of Arbitration[J].Kluwer Law International,1998(5).
[17]Carlos E. Alfaro & Flvia Cuimarey, Who Should Determine Arbitrability? Arbitration in a Changing Economic and Political Environment, ARB, INT'L,1996(12):421.
[18]Peter Gross, Competence of Competence:An English View,8 ARB. INT'L 205(1992).
[19]SMG Swedish Machine Group v.Swedish Machine Group, Inc.,No.90 C 6081,1991 U. S.Dist. LEXIS 780 (N.D. ILL. Jan.4,1991);XVIII Y. B. COM. ARB.457(193).
[20]薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京：法律出版社,2003：1088.
[21]Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary. ST. Paul,MINN,1999, Seventh edition,579.
[22]John H. Wigmore. A Students'Textbook of the Law of Evidence,1935,237.
[23]肖永平,胡永庆.法律选择中的当事人意思自治.法律科学.1997(5)：75.
[24]韩德培.国际私法.北京：北京大学出版社,2000：197.
[25]周清华,任宪龙.法官真意还是当事人真意—“默示意思自治”解析.法学杂志.2008(6)：26.
[26]程显峰.论国际商事仲裁的意思自治与司法监督：(硕士论文).北京：对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[27]吕岩峰.当事人意思自治原则论纲.中国国际司法与比较法年刊.北京：法律出版社,1999：53.
[28]尹田.论意思自治原则.政治与法律.1995(3)：38.
[29]屈广清,周清华,吴莉婧.论仲裁制度中的第三人.中国海商法年刊.2001(3)：230.
[30]屈广清,周清华.国际民事程序法.长春：吉林大学出版社,2003：582.
[31]孙国华.法理学教程.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1994：94.
[32]严存生.法律的价值.太原：山西人民出版社,1991：28.
[33]乔克欲,黎晓平.法的价值论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1991年版：40.
[34][日]川岛武宜.现代化与法(中译本).北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994年版：246.
[35][美]培里等.机制和评价(中译本).北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989年版：3.
[36]崔健国.民事诉讼程序的定位.政法论坛.1995(3)：62.
[37][美]理查德·A·波斯纳著.苏兆康译.法律的经济分析(上、下册).北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年版：156.
[38]戴文礼.公平论.北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：41.
[39][美]乔·萨托利.民主新论.北京：东方出版社,1993：340.
[40][美]哈特.法律的概念.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996：157.
[41][美]彼德·斯坦,约翰·普德.王献评译.西方社会的法律价值.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1989：21.
[42]张文显.20世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,1996：130.
[43][英]施米托夫著.国际贸易法文选.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993：79.
[44]周清华,李海跃.以仲裁的价值取向为视角解析CIETAC 2005年仲裁规则.辽宁大学学报哲学社会科学版.2007(3)：147.
[45]Jean-Francois Poudret, Le droit applicable a la convention d'arbtrage, in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT--ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS,ASA SPECIAL SERIES,NO.8 23(1994).
[46]Klaus Peter Berger, International Arbitral Practice and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts,46 AM. J. COMP. L.129,131(1998).
[47]Catherine A. Rogers, Context and Institutional Structure in Attorney Regulation: Constructing an Enforcement Regime for International Arbitration,39 STAN. J. INT'L L.1, 14 (2003).
[48]William Tetley, Q. C.,A Canadian Looks at American Conflict of laws Theory and Practice, Especially in the Light of the American Legal and Social Systems (Corrective vs. Distributive Justice),38 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.299,322(1999).
[49]MARTIN HUNTER ET AL.,THE FRESHFIELDS GUIDE TO ARBITRATION AND ADR:CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS 142(1993).
[50]1968年欧共体《民商事司法管辖权和判决执行公约》第23条.
[51]Swiss Fed. Trib.,14 May 2001,Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA v. Colon Container Terminal SA,2001(3)ASA Bull.562-563.
[52]Charles Poncet,'Swiss Parliament Removes Lis Pendens as an Obstacle to International Arbitrations in Switzerland',in 2006 World Arb.& Med. Rep.395.
[53]Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.395,403-404(1967).
[54]谢石松.商事仲裁法学.北京：高等教育出版社,2003：209-210.
[55]王生长.中国特色的仲裁管辖权决定制度.仲裁与法律.2003,5：14.
[56]刘德标,于又燕,任晓非.国际商务案例选编.北京：中国商务出版社,2003：448.
[57]W. Michael Reisman, W.Laurence Craig, William Park & Jan Paulsson ed.,op. Cit. at 645.
[58]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁.武汉：武汉大学出版社,1994.
[59]乔欣.仲裁权研究.北京：法律出版社,2001.
[60]程德钧.涉外仲裁与法律(第一辑).北京：中国人民大学出版社,1992.
[61]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑).北京：中国统计出版社,1994.
[62]宁敏,宋连斌.评国际商事仲裁中的管辖权原则.法学评论.2000,2.
[63]徐清宇,杨咏梅.仲裁发展的障碍问题探析.政法论坛(中国政法大学学报).2000,3.
[64]郭寿康,赵秀文.国际经济贸易仲裁法.北京：中国法制出版社,1995.
[65]赵威.国际仲裁法理论与实务.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1995.
[66]谭兵.中国仲裁制度研究.北京：法律出版社,1995.
[67]刘想树.中国涉外仲裁裁决制度与学理研究.北京：法律出版社,2001.
[68]黄进.仲裁法学(修订本).北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[69]肖峋.仲裁制度仲裁程序与仲裁实例分析.北京：中国法制出版社,1997.
[70]杨崇森.商务仲裁之理论与实际.台湾：台湾省中央文物供应社,1984.
[71]乔欣.仲裁权研究—仲裁程序公正与权利保障.北京：法律出版社,2001.
[72]唐德华,孙秀君.仲裁法及配套规定新释新解.北京：人民法院出版社,2003.
[73]张斌生.仲裁法新论.厦门：厦门大学出版社,2002.
[74]张建华.仲裁新论.北京：中国法制出版社,2002.
[75]胡充寒.国际商务仲裁与诉讼研究.长沙：中南工业大学出版社,1996.
[76]李玉泉.国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁.武汉：武汉大学出版社,1994.
[77]李汉生等.仲裁法释论.北京：中国法制出版社,1995.
[78]郑远民等.国际私法—国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁.北京：中信出版社,2004.
[79]刘景一.涉外仲裁实务与案例评析.北京：人民法院出版社,2001.
[80]杨树明.国际商事仲裁法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2002.
[81]李圣敬.国际经贸仲裁法实务.长春：吉林人民出版社,2003.
[82]Hecht v. Busiman's, Cass. le civ.,1972(4):843.
[83]Cass.,Sept.17,1947,n.1570,reprinted in GIORGIO BERNINI,ITALY-AD INFORMANDUM, INT'L. HANDBOOK ON COMM. ARB. SUPPL.17.(1994) (on file with author).
[84]Berthold Goldman, The Complementary Roles of Judges and Arbitrators in Ensuring that International Commercial Arbitration is Effective,in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION:60 YEARS OF ICC ARBITRATION, A LOOK AT THE FUTURE,1984:257,263.
[85]CA Colmar, Nov.29,1968, Impex v. P. A. Z.,JCP, Ed. G.,Pt.Ⅱ.No.16,246(1970).
[86]William Park, Determining Arbitral Jurisdiction:Allocation of Tasks Between Courts and Arbitrators,8 Am Rev. Int'l Arb.133,142-143(1997).
[87]Premium Nafta Products Ltd.v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007]UKHL 40.
[88]Mayer Pierre,"laU" 1989-v P.327 AT P.339.
[89]CA Paris, Mar.9,1972,Lefrere v. SA Les Petroles Pursan,,1972 RTD COM.344.
[90]Civil 1st,25 Apr 2006, Rev. Arb.79(2007).
[91]1983年《法国民事诉讼法典》第1458条第2款.
[92]Supreme Court, Civil 1st,16 Oct 2001,Bull Civ. I,254;Rev. Arb.919 (2002).
[93]Gerold Herrmann, The Arbitration Agreement as the Foundation of Arbitration and Its Recognition by the Courts, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN A CHANGING WORLD 42,45-46(Albert Jan van den Berg ed.,1994).
[94]Philippe Fouchard,La cooperation du President du Tribunalde Grande Instance s 1' arbitrage, Rev. Arb.1985:27.
[95]Herrera Petrus, Christian, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's Arbitration Act,The American Review of International Arbitration,vol.11,2000:408.
[96]Cass, le civ.,26 June 2001,2001(3) Rev. arb.529.
[97]Cass.le civ.,7 June 2006, Copropriete Maritime Jules Verne v. American Bureau of Shipping,2006(4)Rev. orb.945,at 946-947.
[98]CA Paris,4 December 2002,American Bureau of Shipping v. Copropriete Maritime Jules Verne,2003(4)Rev. arb.1286, with note by E. Gaillard at 1290,18(12) Int'1 Arb. Rep. D-1 (2003),XXIX Y.B. Com. Arb.657(2004).
[99]Klaus P. Berger, Germany Adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law,1 INT'L ARB. L. REV.121,122 (1998).
[100]HOWARD M. HOLTZMANN & JOSEPH E. NEUHAUS,A GUIDE TO THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMENTARY 303(1989).
[101]Pacific Int'l Lines Ltd. v. Tsinlien Metals & Minerals Co.,18 Y.B. INT'L ARB.180, 185-186(S.C.H.K.1992).
[102]Rio Algom Ltd. v. Sammi Steel Co.,18 Y. B. INT'L ARB.166,170-171(Ont.Ct. Justice 1991).
[103]A. Sanuel,Jurisdictional Problems in International Commercial Arbitration:a Study of Belgain, DUTCH, English, French, Swedish, Swiss,U. S.AND West German Law(1989):179-189.
[104]Schlosser,Peter, The Competence of Arbitrators and of courts, Arbitration International 189,1992:199-200.
[105]Park, William W, An Arbitrator's Jurisdition to Determine Jurisdiction, ICCA Congress, Montreal May-Hune 2006:67.
[106]Decision of 13 January 2005, reported NJW 16/2005 AT 1125.
[107]Peter Schlosser, La nouvelle legislation allemande sur 1'arbitrage,1998 REV. ARB. 291,298.
[108]German 2000/2.Recht und Praxis Shiedsgerichtsbarkeit 13.An abstract is punblished in www. Uncitral.org. case 373 MAL (art.16).
[109]Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA DTF 121(1995) III 38.
[110]Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M.,ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull, at 531.
[111]Emmanuel Gaillard, La reconnaissance, en droit suisse, de la seconde moitie du principe d'effet negatif de la competence-competence, in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution-Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner at H 319 et seq, ICC Pub. No.693 (2005);Andreas Bucher,'L'examen de la comp etence internationale par le juge suisse',2007 La semaine judiciaire 153,in particular at 173 et seq.
[112]Jean-Francois Poudret,Exception d'arbitrage et litispendance en droit suisse Comment departager le juge et 1'arbitre?,25(2) ASA Bull.230(2007);Jean-Francois Poudret, Note following the Swiss Federal Tribunal's decision of 14 May 2001 in Fomento de Construcciones,2001(4) Rev. arb.835.
[113]Case no.4p.284-1995,decision of 17 August 1995 by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
[114]Karrer,Piere and Kalin-Nauer,Claudia,Is there a Fvour Jurisdictions Arbitri? Standards of Review of Arbitral Jurisdiction Decisions in Switzerland, Journal of International Arbitration,13(3),1996:31-38.
[115]European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961,484 U. N. T. S. 349, art. VI (3) (1961).
[116]《法国民事程序法典》第1458条.
[117]《1987年瑞士国际私法典》第7条第b款,第191条.
[118]First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938(1995).
[119]Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,537 U.S.79 (2002).
[120]NCITRAL Arbitration Rules G. A. Res.98, U. N. GAOR,21st Sess. Supp. No.17, U. N. Doc. A/RES/31/98 art.21(1976).
[121]American Arbitration Association International Rules of 2001,art.15 (2001), available at http://www.adr.org.
[122]London Court of International Arbitration Rules of 1998 art.23(1998),available at http://www.lcia-arbitration.com/lc.
[123]《1996年仲裁法》第4条第2款,第31条第1款,第31条第2款,第31条第3款,第31条第4款,第31条第5款,第32条第2款.
[124]Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose & Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996:A Commentary, second edition, Blackwell Science Ltd,2000:166.
[125]Report of The Commercial Court and Admiralty Court,2005-2006:10.
[126]Azov Shipping Co. v. Baltic Shipping Co.[1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep.68 and [1999] 2 Lloyd' s Rep.159.
[127]Downing v. Al Tameer Establishment[2002] EWCA Civ.721,i31;Al-Naimi v. Islamic Press Agency [2000]1 Lloyd's Rep.522,525; Law Debenture Trust Corp. Pic.Elektrim Finance BV [2005]EWHC1412, J 34 (Ch);Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2006] EWHC 2583,1 29 (Comm).
[128]Jan Paulsson, Arbitration-Friendliness:Promises of Principle and Realities of Practice',paper presented at the International Financial Services London Conference:'Has LondonMet the Challenge?, London,1 December 2006.
[129]Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40, J 135.
[130]Bruce Harris, Report On The England Arbitration Act 1996, p7, ICMA XVI Congress Papers, Printed in Singapore by The Print Lodge Pte Ltd,2007.
[131]UNCITRAL, Status of 1958-Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
[132]Martin Gusy, The History and Significance of the New York Convention,4 VINDOBONA J. INT'L COM. L.& ARB.147,147 (2000).
[133]Pieter Sanders, The History of the New York Convention, in ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO. 9, IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention.
[134]ALAN REDFERN & MARTIN HUNTER, LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 7 (3d ed.1999).
[135]Philip J. McConnaughay, The Scope of Autonomy in International Contracts and Its Relation to Economic Regulation and Development,39 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.595,608-09 (2001).
[136]MICHAEL REISMAN ET AL.,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, CASES,MATERIALS AND NOTES ON THE RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES 524 (2001).
[137]ICC Award,December 7,2001,no.10623,21 ASA BULLETIN 82,90(2003).
[138]William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform, 36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1241,1248,1262-1263(2003).
[139]First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,514 U. S.938(1995).
[140]Filanto v. Chilewich Int'l Corp.,984 F.2d 58,60(2d Cir.1993).[141]《1961年欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第6条第1款.
[142]Discussion on Italian case law infra subpart IV. E.
[143]SIR MICHAEL J. MUSTILL & STEWARD C. BOYD, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN ENGLAND 475-476(2d ed.1989).
[144]KLAUS PETER BERGER, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ARBITRATION 327,1993.
[145]Collins v. Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc.,2 F. Supp.2d 1465,1468 (M. D. Ga.1998).
[146]Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB. INT'L 29(1996).
[147]Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB. INT'L 30(1996).
[148]Emmanuel Gaillard, Validity and Scope of Arbitration Agreements,220 N. Y. L. J.3(1998); VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 147(1981).
[149]Yves Derains, The ICC Arbitral Process Part VIII,Choice of Law Applicable to the Contract and International Arbitration,6 ICC INT'L CT. OF ARB. BULL.10,16(1995).
[150]LEX MERCATORIA AND ARBITRATION:A DISCUSSION OF THE NEW LAW MERCHANT (Thomas E. Carbonneau ed.,1998);Michael Pryles, Application of the Lex Mercatoria in International Commercial Arbitration,18 MEALEY'S INT'L ARB. REPORT 21 (2003).
[151]John B. Tieder Jr.,Factors to Consider in the Choice of Procedural and Substantive Law in International Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.393(2003).
[152]G. W. HAIGHT, CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS: SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF RECORD OF UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE,27-28(1958).
[153]章尚锦主编.国际私法.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000年版：250.
[154]Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligation, June 19,1980,1980 0. J. (C 27) 36 art.1(2) (d).
[155]Piero Bernardini,Arbitration Clauses:Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, at 200.
[156]GIORGIO BERNINI,L'ARBITRATO:DIRITTO INTERNO CONVENZIONI INTERNAZIONALI 125(1993).
[157]《欧洲公约》第6条第1款。
[158]GIUDITTA CORDERO MOSS,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 280 n.707(1999).
[159]Amy J. Schmitz,Refreshing Contractual Analysis of ADR Agreements by Curing Bipolar Avoidance of Modern Common Law,9 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV.1 (2004).
[160]Il Codice Civile Italiano, C. c. n,218, art.4 [paragraph] 2 (1995) (the Italian Private International Law).
[161]Philippe Fouchard, Note, REV.ARB.653(1989).
[162]CA Paris, Dec.8,1988, REV. ARB.150(1990).
[163]Charles Jarrosson, Note sous Cour d'Appel de Paris,8 December 1988, REV. ARB.157 (1990).
[164]TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO Ⅲ & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 87 (2d ed.2003).
[165]MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL (1990).
[166]Christian H. Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 AM. REV. INT'L ARB.397,407-408(2000).
[167]JEAN ROBERT, L'ARBITRAGE. DROIT INTERNE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 103 (6th ed.1993).
[168]Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, le ch.,Dec.7,1994, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1996,245,note Jarrosson.
[169]William W. Park, Text and Context in International Dispute Resolution,15 B. U. Int'l L. J.191,202(1997).
[170]Otto Sandrock, To Continue Nationalizing or to De-Nationalize? That is Now the Question in International Arbitration,12 AM. REV.INT'L ARB.301,308 (2001).
[171]JEAN ROBERT & THOMAS CARBONNEAU, THE FRENCH LAW OF ARBITRATION at II:2-10,2-11. (Matthew Bender ed.,1983).
[172]John J. Barcelo III,Who Decides the Arbitrators' Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1124,1125 (2003).
[173]INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD 3 (Stephanie Marrie & Aloke Ray eds.2004).
[174]Filip D. Ly, Commercial Law as a Refuge from Contract Law:A Comparative and Uniform Law Perspective,45 WAYNE L. REV.1825,1836 (2000).
[175]Cour de cassation[Cass.][highest court of ordinary jurisdiction],Cass. le civ. Dec.20,1993,REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1994,116,118,note Helene Gaudemet-Tallon.
[176]Huber, Arbitration Clause "by Reference," in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT--ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS,ASA SPECIAL SERIES,NO.878-88(1994).
[177]United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the 23rd Meeting, U.N. Doc.E/CONF.26/SR.23 (Sept.12,1958),reprinted in INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:NEW YORK CONVENTION III.C.at I.B.3(Giorgio Gaja ed.,1978).
[178]Dr. Peter Schlosser, Report on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol on its Interpretation by the Court of Justice,19790. J. (C 59) 71 (Mar.5,1979).
[179]James M. Hosking, The Third Party Non-Signatory's Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration:Doing Justice Without Destroying Consent,4 PEPP. DISP. RESOL. L. J. 469,542-543(2004).
[180]9 U.S.C.[subsection]201-208(2006).
[181]9 U.S. C.[section] 205.
[182]David L. Threlkeld & Co. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd.,923 F.2d 245,250 (2d Cir.1991).
[183]417 U.S.506 (1974).
[184]473 U.S.614(1985).
[185]Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427(1953).
[186]American Safety Equip. Corp. v. J. P. McGuire & Co,391 F.2d 821,825 (2d Cir.1968) (citing Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427,444(1953)).
[187]Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrystler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,621(1985).
[188]Sherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519-520(1974).
[189]Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1(1972).
[190]New York Convention, art. V.
[191]Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno,684 F.2d 184,186-87(1st Cir.1982).
[200]DOMENICO DI PIETRO & MARTIN PLATTE, ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARDS: THE NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958 56-61(2001).
[201]YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 710-712(1997)
[202]YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 371-372(1983)
[203]9 U.S.C. [section] 202.
[204]Intertec Contracting A/S v. Turner Steiner Int'1,S.A.,No.98-CV-9116,2000 WL 709004 (S.D. N.Y. May 31,2000),aff'd,6 F. App'x 61 (2d Cir.2001).
[205]Jennifer L. Pilla, Note, Agreeing on Where to Disagree:Jain v. De Mere and International Arbitration Agreements,21 N. C. J. INT'L L.& COM. REG.421.
[206]9 U.S.C.[section] 2.
[207]William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB. INT'L 1248-49 (1996).
[208]460 U.S.1 (1983).
[209]465 U.S.1 (1984).
[210]Linda R. Hirshman, The Second Arbitration Trilogy:The Federalization of Arbitration Law,71 VA. L. REV.1305,1378 (1985).
[211]482 U.S.483 (1987).
[212]GARY BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 352 (2d ed.2001).
[213]First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U. S.938,947(1995);Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc.19 F.3d 1503 (3d Cir.1994).
[214]Barcelo, supra note 35, at 1121.
[215]Reuben, supra note 291,at 870-879.
[216]6 P.3d 669,688-694(Cal.2000).
[217]Jeffrey W. Stempel,Arbitration, Unconscionability and Equilibrium:The Return of Unconscionability Analysis As a Counterweight to Arbitration Formalism,19 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL.757,762-763(2004).
[218]First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938,944(1995).
[219]Susan L. Karamanian, The Road to the Tribunal and Beyond:International Commercial Arbitration and United States Courts,34 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV.62(2002),REV.20(2002).
[220]Cass.,sez. un.,13 Dec.1971,n.3620, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 190(1976)
[221]Cass.,sez.un.,25 May 1976, n.1877,YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 278(1978)
[222]Cass.(I),sez.un.,22 May 1995, n.5601,YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 611(1996).
[223]Cass.,2 marzo 1996, n.1649, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 734(1997).
[224]Il Codice Civile Italiano, C. c.,n.218, art.4, [paragraph] 2(1995);,C. c., n.262, art.1341(1995);art.1342(1995).
[225]Cass.,18 April 2003, n.6349.
[226]Cass.,28 October 1993,n.10704, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 739(1995).
[227]Cass.,sez.un.,10 March 2000,n.58,XXVI YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 816 (2001).
[228]Supreme Court, sez. Un.,28 July 1998, n.7398, Foro It.I 1998, under Arbitrato n.68.
[229]ADAM SAMUEL, JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN, DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS,U.S.AND WEST GERMAN LAW 96(1989).
[230]RENE DAVID,L'ARBITRAGE DANS LE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 191-199(1982).
[231]Harold S.Crowter & Anthony G. V.Tobin, Ensuring that Arbitration Remains a Preferred Option for International Dispute Resolution-Some Practical Considerations,19 J. INT'L ARB.301 (2002).
[232]Christopher Drahozal,Of Rabbits and Rhinoceri:A Survey of Empirical Research on International Commercial Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.23,25 (2003).
[233]New York Convention Day, June 10,1958,Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the New York Convention--Experience and Prospects, U. N. Sales No.E.99.V.2(1958),available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/NYCDay-e. pdf.
[234]在国际商事仲裁领域将来可能的工作：联合国国际贸易法委员会秘书处注释.
[235]Gerold Herrmann, Does the World Need Additional Uniform Legislation on Arbitration?, 15 ARB. INT'L 216,236(1999).
[236]TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO III & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 89 (2d ed.2003).
[237]W. MICHEAL REISMAN, SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION: BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 113(1992).
[238]Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,638(1985).
[239]JEAN-FRANCOIS POUDRET & SEBASTIEN BESSON, DROIT COMPARE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL 443 (2002).
[240]Albert Jan van den Berg, Some Practical Questions Concerning the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY,at 212-213(United Nations ed.,1995).
[241]William K. Slate II,The Culture Connection in International Commercial Arbitration, 59 DISP. RESOL.J.1,13 (2004).
[242]Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its 35th Session, Supp.No.17,[paragraph] 243, U. N. Doc. A/57/17(June 17-28,2002).
[243]Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its Thirty-seventh Session, Introduction to the Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Sales Convention,[paragraphs]17-18, U. N. Doc.A/CN.9/562(June 9,2004)
[244]Fritz Enderlein, Uniform Law and Its Application by Judges and Arbitrators, in INTERNATIONAL UNIFORM LAW IN PRACTICE 329 (Unidroit ed.,1988).
[245]Elizabeth H. Patterson, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods:Unification and the Tension between Compromise and Domination,22 STAN. J. INT'L L.263,283(1986).
[246]Bernini,Voices of International Practice, in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY,1982:226.
[247]韩健.论国际商事仲裁中的管辖权异议问题.中国国际私法与比较法年刊(第3卷).北京：法律出版社.2000：477.
[248]王勇.我国国际商事仲裁中的管辖权/管辖权原则之再述评—兼与宁敏、宋连斌先生商榷.当代法学.2000(2).
[249]全国人大常委会法制工作委员会胡康生主任,2004年10月在纪念仲裁法颁布10周年大会上讲话摘录.
[250]朱志国.中国仲裁基础.北京：警官教育出版社.1997：195.
[251]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002：37.
[252]杨玲.论仲裁机构的法律地位—兼谈我国仲裁法的修改.仲裁与法律.2005：53.
[253]赵健.回顾与展望：世纪之交的中国国际商事仲裁.仲裁与法律.2001：35.
[254]王生长.适用CIETAC新规则进行仲裁.大律师网.http://www.chinalawyer.org.cn/xueshu/ShowConfArticle.asp?id=236.
[255]最高人民法院法释[1998]27号《关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复》
[256]最高人民法院法释[2006]7号《关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》
[257]最高人民法院法发[1995]18号《关于人民法院处理与涉外仲裁事项有关问题的通知》.
[258]高雅.试论国际商事仲裁协议的效力认定主体——兼评中国的立法与实践.法律研究,2005：11.
[259]William Park,The Arbitrator's Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction, in ICCA Congress Series No.13, International Arbitration 2006:Back to Basics 89.
[260]P. Fouchard, E. Gaillard & B. Goldman, On International Commercial Arbitration, in Title of the book para 682 (E. Gaillard & J. Savage eds.,1999).
[261]Thomas Carbonneau, The Law and Practice of Arbitration,189 (2nd ed 2007);Fouchard, Gaillard & Goldman, supra note 2, at 650 et seq.
[262]Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M. Kroll,Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-16(2003).
[263]宋连斌.国际商事仲裁管辖权研究.北京：法律出版社,2000：209-210.
[264]杨良宜.国际商事仲裁.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997：128.
[265]Christian Herrera Petrus,Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Span's 1988 Arbitration Act,American Review of International Arbitration,2000.
[267]Steven Walt,Decision by Division:The Contractarian Structure of Commercial Arbitration,51 Rutgers L.,Rev.369:370.
[268]翁国民,黄子凯.仲裁的自裁管辖权及其与仲裁管辖权司法监督的程序竞合.法学论坛.2001,11(188)：28.
[269]孙珺.德国仲裁立法改革.外国法译评.1999,1.
[270]Alan Redfern & Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed.),Sweet & Maxwell 1991:275.
[271]中国国际商会仲裁研究所编译.国际商事仲裁文集(中英文对照).北京：中国对外经济贸易出版社,1998：40,278.
[272]PAUL FRIEDLAND, ARBITRATION CLAUSES FOR INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS (2000).
[273]赵秀文.论仲裁条款独立原则.法学研究.2000,19(4)：69.
[274]李双元.国际经济贸易法律与实务新论.长沙：湖南大学出版社,1996：392-395.
[275]Antonias Dimolitsad,Separability and Kompentenz-Kompentenz,ICCA Congress Series No.9, Paris/1999:217.
[276]陈治东.国际商事仲裁法.北京：法律出版社,1998：125.
[277]Janet A. Rosen, Arbitration under Private International Law:The Doctrine of Separability and Compentence de la compentence, Fordham International Law Journal,Vol.17, 1994:603.
[278]S.Schwebel,The Severability of the Arbitration Agreement,International Arbitration: Three Salient Problems, Grotius Publications, Cambridge,1987:2-3,50.
[279]John Yukio Gotanda, An Efficient Method for Determing Jurisdiction in International Arbitrations,40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 11(2001).
[280]Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.(http:www. un. or. at./uncitral).
[281]Shirin Philipp, Is the Suprem Court Bucking the Trend? First Options v. Kaplan in Light of European Reform Initiatives in Arbitration Law,14 Boston University International Law Journal 119(Spring,1996).
[282]宋连斌,林一飞编译.国际商事仲裁资料精选.北京：知识产权出版社,2004：102.
[283]赵秀文.国际商事仲裁案例解析.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：2-15.
[284]ICC Case No.2476/1976, I ICC Awards 289.
[285]Robert Merkin,Arbitration Act 1996-An Annotated Guide,1996:52-53.
[286]Judgement of May 5,1977, Bundesgerichtshof [Suprem Court],68 BGHZ 356 (F. R. G.).
[1]李双元.国际经济贸易法律与实务新论.长沙：湖南大学出版社,1996：396.
[2]宋连斌.国际商事仲裁管辖权研究.北京：法律出版社,2000：209.
[3]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[4]赵秀文.国际化商事仲裁极其适用法律研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2002：40-41.
[5]参见严红.自裁管辖原则与我国仲裁管辖权的确认.浙江工商大学学报(原浙江省政法管理干部学院学报.2004(69)：75.；张泽宏.论我国仲裁庭自裁管辖权原则及其确立.法制与社会,2006(11)：232等。
[6] Emmanuel Gaillard, Convention d'arbitrage, in Juris Classeur:Droit International Fasc.586-5, H 49,50(1994); see also E. Gaillard and J. Savage (eds.),Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration *f$_ 660 et seq., Kluwer (1999).
[7] Fouchard,Gaillard and Goldman, International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International,1999:400.
[8][美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法.邓正来译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：486.
[9]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[10] Walther Habscheid, Das Problem der Kompetenz-Kompetenz des Schiedsgerichts,78 SCHWEIZE. JURISTENZEITUNG 321(1982).
[11]Gaillard Enmmanuel, "The Negative Effect of Competence-Competence," Mealey's International Arbitration Report, 2002(1):27.
[12] Yves Derains & Eric A. S Guide to the New ICC Rules of Arbitration, Kluwer Law International,1998:5.
[13]《欧洲公约》于1961年4月21日在日内瓦签署,到2002年10月已经有28个国家加入该公约。参见http://www.jurisint.org/pub/01/en/153.htm.
[14] ADAM SAMUEL, JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN,DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS, U.S. AND WEST GERMAN LAW 178 (1989).
[15]JEAN-FRANCOIS POUDRET & SEBASTIEN BESSON, DROIT COMPARE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL 407 (2002).
[16]目前,下述区域己根据《示范法》颁布仲裁立法：亚美尼亚(2006)、澳大利亚(1991)、奥地利(2005)、阿塞拜疆(1999)、巴林(1994)、孟加拉国(2001)、白俄罗斯(1999)、保加利亚(2002)、柬埔寨(2006)、加拿大(1986)、智利(2004)、中国：香港特别行政区和澳门特别行政区(1996)、克罗地亚(2001)、塞浦路斯、丹麦(2005)、埃及(1996)、爱沙尼亚(2006)、德国(1998)、希腊(1999)、危地马拉(1995)、匈牙利(1994)、印度(1996)、伊朗伊斯兰共和国(1997)爱尔兰(1998)、日本(2003)、约旦(2001)、肯尼亚(1995)、立陶宛(1996)、前南斯拉夫的马其顿共和国(2006)、马达加斯加(1998)、马耳他(1995)、墨西哥(2005) 新西兰(1996)、尼加拉瓜(2005)、尼日利亚(1990)、挪威(2004)、阿曼(1997)、巴拉圭(2002)、菲律宾(2004)、波兰共和国(2005)、大韩民国(1999)、俄罗斯联邦(1993)、塞尔维亚(2006)、新加坡(2001)、西班牙(2003)、斯里兰卡(1995)、泰国(2002)、突尼斯(1993)、土耳其(2001)、乌克兰(1994)、大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国：苏格兰(1990)和联合王国的海外领地百慕大；美利坚合众国：加利福尼亚州(1996)、康涅狄格州(2000)伊利诺斯州(1998)、路易斯安那州、俄勒冈州和德克萨斯州；乌干达(2000)、委内瑞拉(玻利瓦尔共和国1(1998)、赞比亚(2000)和津巴布韦(1996)。另外,下述区域已根据《1985年国际商事仲裁示范法以及2006年修正案》颁布仲裁立法：爱尔兰(2008)、毛里求斯(2008)、新西兰(2007)、秘鲁(2008)和斯洛文尼亚(2008)。UNCITRAL website, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration_status.html.
[17] RULES OF ARBITRATION, art.6, [paragraph] 4,http://www.iccwbo.org/court/english/arbitration/pdf documents/ rules/rules_arb_english.pdf.
[18]其他许多国际仲裁机构的仲裁规则也都对自裁管辖原则积极效力作出了明确的规定,另外参见世界知识产权组织仲裁与调解中心《1994年仲裁规则》第36条,美国仲裁协会《国际仲裁规则》第15条,伦敦国际仲裁院1998年仲裁规则第14条,等。
[19] Howard M.Holtzman & Joseph E. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration:Legislative History and Commentary 216(1989).
[20] Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.(http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf).
[21]Shirin Philipp, Is the Suprem Court Bucking the Trend? First Options v. Kaplan in Light of European Reform Initiatives in Arbitration Law,14 Boston University International Law Journal 119(Spring,1996).
[22] Christian Herrera Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompentenz-Kompendenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spanish's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 The American Review of International Arbitration 397(2000).
[23]宋连斌.国际商事仲裁管辖权研究.北京：法律出版社,2000：93.
[24] Christian Herrera Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompentenz-Kompendenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spanish's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 The American Review of International Arbitration 397(2000).
[25] Peter Gross, Competence of Competence:An English View,8 ARB.INT'L 205(1992).
[26] Fed. Trib., Feb.6,1990, Deutsche Babcock AG v. House of Trade and Contracting Co.,1990 BULL. ASA 163.
[27]参见英国《1996年仲裁法》第32条第2款。
[28] SMG Swedish Machine Group v. Swedish Machine Group,Inc.,No.90 C 6081,1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 780 (N.D.ILL. Jan. 4,1991);XVIII Y.B. COM. ARB.457(193).
[29] Fouchard,Gaillard and Goldman, "International Commercial Arbitration," Kluwer Law International,1999:400.
[30]薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京：法律出版社,2003,1088.
[31]Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary. ST. Paul, MINN,1999, Seventh edition,579.
[32] John H. Wigmore. A Students' Textbook of the Law of Evidence,1935,237.
[33] Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.(http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf).
[27]冯克菲.管辖权/关系圈理论及其在我国的实践.仲裁与法律.2002,1.
[35] Schmitthoff, The Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in Schultsz & Van den Berg ed., The Art of Arbitration,Essays on International Arbitration:Liber Amicortum Pieter Sanders,1982:285.
[36]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践.北京：法律出版社,2000：150.
[37]参见《示范法》第8条；《欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第6条第3款；法国《民事诉讼法》第1458条；韩国《仲裁法》第3条；荷兰《民事诉讼法典》第1022条；英国《1996年仲裁法》第9条等。
[38]William W. Park, The 2002 Freshfields Lecture--Arbitration's Protean Nature:The Value of Rules and The Risk of Discretion,19 ARB.INTL.279,280 (2003).
[39] THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU,CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION 3 (3d ed.2002).
[40] PAUL A. GELINAS, ARBITRATION CLAUSES:ACHIEVING EFFECTIVENESS, IN IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS 49 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed,1999).
[41]参见《示范法》第34条第1款；纽约公约第5条第1款。
[42]Anam Indus. Co.,Ltd. v. Twi Lite Int'l Inc.,No. C-96-2323 SI,1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16060(N.D. Cal. Oct 24,1996), also in YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 910-11 (1998).
[43] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 185(1981).
[44]W. MICHEAL REISMAN, SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION:BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 107 (1992).
[45]ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO.5,XTH INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CONGRESS. STOCKHOLM,21-29 MAY 1990 (A.J. van den Berg ed.,1991).
[46] M. Scott Donahey, Defending the Arbitration against Sabotage,13 J. INT'L ARB.93,110(1996).
[47]参见1998年国际商会仲裁规则第6条第2款。
[48]参见《示范法》第16条。
[49]参见1968年欧共体《民商事司法管辖权和判决执行公约》第23条。
[50] Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf.
[51]Swiss Fed. Trib.,14 May 2001,Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA v. Colon Container Terminal SA,2001(3) ASA Bull.555.
[52]《瑞士国际私法》第9条第1款“如果在国内涉诉的当事人因相同的目的在国外涉诉,若瑞士法院认为外国法院将在合理的时间内作出判决,而该判决可以在瑞士得到执行,那么瑞士法院可以中止国内的诉讼。”
[53]《元照英美法词典》将“一事不再理”解释为有合法管辖权的法院就案件作出终局判决后,在原当事人间不得就同一事项、同一诉讼标的、同一请求再次提起诉讼。法院作出的发生法律效力的判决是最终的决定。参见薛波主编.元照英美法词典.北京：法律出版社,2003,1189.
[54] Swiss Fed. Trib.,14 May 2001,Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA v. Colon Container Terminal SA,2001(3) ASA Bull.562-563.
[55] Charles Poncet,'Swiss Parliament Removes Lis Pendens as an Obstacle to International Arbitrations in Switzerland', in 2006 World Arb.& Med. Rep.395.
[56] the report issued on 17 February 2006 by the Judicial Affairs Committee of the Swiss National Council,'Initiative parlementaire-Modification de l'art.186 de la loi federale sur le droit international prive-Rapport de la Commission des affaires juridiques du Conseil national du 17 fevrier 2006', Feuille federale No.21,30 May 2006, at 4469, available on line at www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2006/4469.pdf.
[57] Emmanuel Gaillard, Aspects philosophiques du droit de l'arbitrage international, forthcoming in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Yf 82 et seq. (2008).
[58]肖永平,胡永庆.法律选择中的当事人意思自治.法律科学.1997(5)：75.
[59]Charles Dumoulin(1500-1566).
[60]韩德培.国际私法.北京：北京大学出版社,2000：197.
[61]周清华、任宪龙.法官真意还是当事人真意—“默示意思自治”解析.法学杂志.2008(6)：26.
[62]程显峰.论国际商事仲裁的意思自治与司法监督：(硕士论文).北京：对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[63]吕岩峰.当事人意思自治原则论纲.中国国际司法与比较法年刊.北京：法律出版社,1999：53.
[64]尹田.论意思自治原则.政治与法律.1995(3)：38.
[65]屈广清、周清华、吴莉婧.论仲裁制度中的第三人.中国海商法年刊.2001(3)：230.
[66]屈广清周清华.国际民事程序法.长春：吉林大学出版社,2003：582.
[67]谢石松主编.商事仲裁法学.北京：高等教育出版社,2003：206.
[68]孙国华.法理学教程.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1994：94.
[69]严存生.法律的价值.太原：山西人民出版社,1991：28.
[70]乔克欲,黎晓平.法的价值论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1991年版：40.
[71][日]川岛武宜.现代化与法(中译本).北京：中国政法大学出版社,1994年版：246.
[72][美]培里等.机制和评价(中译本).北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989年版：3.
[73][美]博登海默.法理学、法律哲学与法律方法.邓正来译,北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2004年版：330.
[74]乔克欲,黎晓平.法的价值论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1991年版：42.
[75]崔健国.民事诉讼程序的定位.政法论坛.1995(3)：62.
[76][美]理查德·A·波斯纳著.苏兆康译.法律的经济分析(上、下册).北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年版：156.
[77]戴文礼.公平论.北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：41.
[78][美]乔·萨托利.民主新论.北京：东方出版社,1993：340.
[79][美]哈特.法律的概念.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996：157.
[80][美]彼德·斯坦,约翰·普德.王献评译.西方社会的法律价值.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1989：21.
[81][美]理查德·A·波斯纳著.苏兆康译.法律的经济分析.(上、下册).北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年版：156.
[82]张文显.20世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,1996：130.
[83][美]博登海默.法理学——法哲学及其方法.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：385.
[84] New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Symposium on Arbitration in the Securities Industry, Foreword, Fordham Law Review, Vol. LXII, April 1995, No.5, pp.1501转引自赵秀文著.国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究.北京：北京大学出版社.2002：4.
[851[英]施米托夫著.国际贸易法文选.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993：79.
[86]周清华,李海跃.以仲裁的价值取向为视角解析CIETAC 2005年仲裁规则.辽宁大学学报哲学社会科学版.2007(3)：147.
[87] Jean-Francois Poudret, Le droit applicable a la convention d'arbtrage, in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT--ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS, ASA SPECIAL SERIES, NO.8 23(1994).
[88] Klaus Peter Berger, International Arbitral Practice and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 46 AM. J. COMP. L.129,131(1998).
[89] Catherine A. Rogers, Context and Institutional Structure in Attorney Regulation:Constructing an Enforcement Regime for International Arbitration,39 STAN.J. INT'L L.1,14 (2003).
[90] William Tetley, Q.C., A Canadian Looks at American Conflict of laws Theory and Practice, Especially in the Light of the American Legal and Social Systems (Corrective vs. Distributive Justice),38 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.299,322 (1999).
[91]MARTIN HUNTER ET AL., THE FRESHFIELDS GUIDE TO ARBITRATION AND ADR:CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS 142(1993).
[92]中国国际商会仲裁研究所编译.国际商事仲裁文集(中英文对照).北京：中国对外经济贸易出版社,1998年版：40,278.
[93]赵秀文.论仲裁条款独立原则.法学研究.2000,19(4)：69.
[94] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 199 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[95] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 214 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[961]Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.395,403-04 (1967).
[97]Hecht v. Busiman's, Cass. le civ., July 4,1972, reprinted in 99 JOURNAL DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL 843(1972).
[98] Cass., Sept.17,1947, n.1570, reprinted in GIORGIO BERNINI, ITALY-AD INFORMANDUM, INT'L. HANDBOOK ON COMM. ARB.SUPPL.17.(1994) (on file with author).
[99] Berthold Goldman, The Complementary Roles of Judges and Arbitrators in Ensuring that International Commercial Arbitration is Effective, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION:60 YEARS OF ICC ARBITRATION, A LOOK AT THE FUTURE 257,263(1984).
[100] THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU, CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION 20 (3d ed.2002).
[101]William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INT'L 137,154(1996).
[102] CA Colmar,Nov.29,1968, Impex v. P.A.Z.,JCP, Ed.G., Pt.Ⅱ.No.16,246(1970).
[103] Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration in the United States,68.
[104] William Park, Determining Arbitral Jurisdiction:Allocation of Tasks Between Courts and Arbitrators,8 Am Rev. Int'l Arb.133,142-143(1997).
[105] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40.
[106] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York on June 10,1958.
[107]UNCITRAL, Status of 1958-Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html.
[108] PAUL FRIEDLAND, ARBITRATION CLAUSES FOR INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS (2000).
[109] Martin Gusy, The History and Significance of the New York Convention,4 VINDOBONA J. INT'L COM. L.& ARB. 147,147(2000).
[110] United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the 23rd Meeting, U. N. Doc. E/CONF.26/SR.23 (Sept.12,1958), reprinted in INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:NEW YORK CONVENTION III. C.202,211 (Giorgio Gaja ed.,1978).
[111]Pieter Sanders, The History of the New York Convention, in ICCA CONGRESS SERIES NO.9, IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS:40 YEARS OF APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION 11,12-13 (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed.,1998); Martin Domke, Comment, The United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration,53 AM. J. INT'L L.414(1959).
[112] RENE DAVID,L'ARBITRAGE DANS LE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 290 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1982).
[113] THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU,CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION 20 (3d ed.2002).
[114] MICHAEL REISMAN ET AL., INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, CASES, MATERIALS AND NOTES ON THE RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES 524 (2001).
[115] ICC Award, December 7,2001,no.10623,21 ASA BULLETIN 82,90 (2003).
[116] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 402 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[117] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 173(1981);KLAUS PETER BERGER, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ARBITRATION 133(1993).
[118] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 123 (1981).
[119] New York Convention, art. V(I)(a).
[120] Gerold Herrmann, The Arbitration Agreement as the Foundation of Arbitration and Its Recognition by the Courts, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN A CHANGING WORLD 42 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed.,1994).
[121]下文将对此详加论述。
[122] Gerold Herrmann, The Arbitration Agreement as the Foundation of Arbitration and Its Recognition by the Courts, in INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN A CHANGING WORLD 45-46 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed.,1994).
[123] ALAN REDFERN & MARTIN HUNTER, LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 7 (3d ed.1999).
[124] Philip J. McConnaughay, The Scope of Autonomy in International Contracts and Its Relation to Economic Regulation and Development,39 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.2001:595,608-609.
[125] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 135(1981).
[126] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 135(1981).
[127] William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform,36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1241,1248 (2003).
[128] William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform,36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1262-1263 (2003).
[129] William W. Park, The Specificity of International Arbitration:The Case for FAA Reform,36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.1263 (2003)
[130]在First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan案中,514 U.S.938(1995),美国联邦最高法院支持了上诉审法院的裁定,认为法庭应当独立地决定仲裁庭是否对争议有管辖权,因为关于可仲裁事项问题应由法院而不是仲裁庭首先作出裁定。
[131]在Filanto v. Chilewich Int'l Corp.,984 F.2d 58,60 (2d Cir.1993)案中,法院指出独立诉讼是指原告请求法院裁定禁止仲裁或者强令仲裁或者裁定争议是可仲裁的或者是不可仲裁的,没有当事人请求其他救济,例如关于争议事项的实体问题的救济,终止这种诉讼的裁定—经作出就可以立即提起上诉。
[132]《1961年欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第6条第1款规定：“仲裁协议的一方当事人基于存在仲裁协议这一事实,向已经受理仲裁协议项下争议的法院提出管辖权异议,根据禁止反言原则,应在实体答辩之前或者同时提出,前提视受诉法院地法律将这种异议视为程序问题还是实体问题而定。”
[133]然而,不必高估这个问题,就目前已经报道的关于《纽约公约》的判例来看,尚未有判例提及就仲裁协议的效力提出异议的时间限制问题。
[134] See discussion on Italian case law infra subpart Ⅳ.E.
[135] SIR MICHAEL J. MUSTILL & STEWARD C. BOYD, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN ENGLAND 475-76(2d ed.1989).
[136]责令当事人仲裁解决其争议具有典型的普通法系的特点,在大陆法系也常常采纳这一做法。“法院只是拒绝行使管辖权,允许当事人开始仲裁程序”参见KLAUS PETER BERGER, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ARBITRATION 327,1993.
[137] Collins v. Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc.,2 F. Supp.2d 1465,1468 (M.D.Ga.1998).
[138]“责令当事人提交仲裁”无法得到确切的解释,因为《纽约公约》将这个问题留给各缔约国国内法解决,由国内法决定为了达到此目的而应采取的措施。
[139]《示范法》以及所有将《示范法》转化为国内法的仲裁法都规定了在当事人没有或者拒绝指定仲裁员时由法院指定仲裁员的机制。《示范法》第11条规定： (1)除非各方当事人另有协议,否则不应以所属国籍为由排除任何人作为仲裁员。(2)各方当事人可以自由地就指定一名仲裁员或者数名仲裁员的程序达成协议,但是应符合本条第4款和第5款的规定。(3)如果未达成上述协议,则(a)在仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成时,每一方当事人应各自指定一名仲裁员,第三名仲裁员由已经指定的两名仲裁员指定；如果一方当事人在收到对方当事人要求其指定仲裁员的 通知之后30天内未能指定仲裁员,或者如果被指定的两名仲裁员未能在他们被指定之后30天内就第三名仲裁员达成协议,那么应一方当事人的请求,由本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构指定。(b)在仲裁庭由一名仲裁员组成时,如果双方当事人未能就独任仲裁员的人选达成协议,那么应一方当事人的请求,由本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构指定。(4)若双方当事人就指定仲裁员的程序达成了协议,则(a)一方当事人没有按照约定的程序指定仲裁员,或者(b)双方当事人或者已经指定的两名仲裁员没有按照约定的程序指定仲裁员,或者(c)第三方当事人包括机构没有履行约定的程序委托其行使的任何职能,任何一方当事人均可以请求本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构采取必要措施,除非关于指定仲裁员程序的约定规定了指定仲裁员的其他方法。(5)本法第6条规定的法院或者其他机构就本法第3条或者第4条委托其的事项作出的裁定不允许上诉。在指定仲裁员时,法院或者其他机构应适当考虑双方当事人协议中就仲裁员资格作出的任何要求以及为了确保指定独立、公正的仲裁员可能需要考虑的因素；在指定独任仲裁员或者第三名仲裁员时,应考虑指定与双方当事人不同国籍的仲裁员的可能性。
[140]参见《纽约公约》第2条第3款。
[141]参见《纽约公约》第2条第1款。
[142]参见《纽约公约》第2条第3款。
[143]法官内尔·嘉柏伦认为,“首先提一个问题可能有助于理解,即为什么对仲裁协议有书面形式要件的要求?我们都知道可以口头形式达成实体合同,并且口头的实体合同可以达到强制执行。因此,我有一个无法理解的问题,当一方当事人向另一方当事人发去了一份包含仲裁条款的合同,另一方当事人完全依照该合同行事未作任何修改,如果该合同不是书面的,为什么另一方当事人一方面完全可以置仲裁条款于不顾,另一方面却可以主张合同中的价格条款有效,反过来以违约为由提起诉讼。”Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB. INT'L 29(1996)有学者对法官内尔·嘉柏伦的观点持批评意见,认为放松《示范法》第7条关于书面形式的要求对于仲裁协议来说相当于打开了潘多拉的盒子。对于《示范法》第7条规定的明确的经签署的书面仲裁协议,法院正在面临困境。如果放宽仲裁协议的定义将发生什么情况?只要看一看美国法院就可以找到答案,美国法院越来越倾向于采纳替代的方法比如贸易惯例和工业习惯来判断仲裁协议的效力。适用工业习惯的结果只能是损害商事仲裁的完整性。
[144] DOMENICO DI PIETRO & MARTIN PLATTE, ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARDS:THE NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958,2001:81.
[145] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 156(1981).
[146] Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice?,12 ARB.INT'L 30(1996).
[147] Albert van den Berg,Consolidated Commentary New York Convention, Formal Validity, Uniform Rule and Municipal Law, in YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 584-587(2003).
[148] Emmanuel Gaillard, Validity and Scope of Arbitration Agreements,220 N.Y.L.J.3(1998); VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 147 (1981).伊曼纽尔·盖拉德(Emmanuel Gaillard),国际仲裁研究院院长,被公认为世界最权威的国际仲裁法专家,曾用英文和法文写下大量的国际仲裁法各个领域的研究论文。盖拉德教授于巴黎第十二大学教授国际仲裁法和国际私法,在250多个仲裁中分别担任过仲裁员、辩护律师、和专家顾问。
[149] JULIAN D.M. LET, LOUKAS A. MISTELIS & STEFAN M. KROLL, COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 143 (2003).
[150] Yves Derains, The ICC Arbitral Process Part VIII, Choice of Law Applicable to the Contract and International Arbitration.6 ICC INT'L CT. OF ARB.BULL.10,16(1995).
[151]LEX MERCATORIA AND ARBITRATION:A DISCUSSION OF THE NEW LAW MERCHANT (Thomas E. Carbonneau ed.,1998);Michael Pryles, Application of the Lex Mercatoria in International Commercial Arbitration,18 MEALEY'S INT'L ARB.REPORT 21 (2003).
[152] John B. Tieder Jr.,Factors to Consider in the Choice of Procedural and Substantive Law in International Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.393(2003).
[153] G.W. HAIGHT, CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS:SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF RECORD OF UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE,27-28(1958).
[154]特征性履行原则产生于20世纪20、30年代的东欧和瑞士等国家,最早由瑞士学者施尼泽所提出。特征性履行理论(doctrine of characteristic performance of the typical performance),又称特征之债理论(doctrine of characteristic obligation)或特征性义务,是国际合同当事人未选择适用合同准据法时,根据合同的特征性质确定合同法律适用的一种理论和方法。所谓特征性履行,就是指双务合同中代表合同本质特征的当事人履行合同的行为,合同准据法应为负责特征性履行义务的当事人的住所地法或惯常居所地法,或者当事人营业所所在地法。参见章尚锦主编.国际私法.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000(3)：250.
[155] Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligation, June 19,1980,1980 O.J. (C 27) 36 art. 1(2)(d).
[156] Piero Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses:Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, at 200.
[157] GIORGIO BERNINI, L'ARBITRATO:DIRITTO INTERNO CONVENZIONI INTERNAZIONALI 125(1993).
[158] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 287(1981).
[159] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 287-288(1981).
[160]参见《欧洲公约》第6条第1款。
[161]GIUDITTA CORDERO MOSS, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 280 n.707(1999).
[162] Amy J. Schmitz, Refreshing Contractual Analysis of ADR Agreements by Curing Bipolar Avoidance of Modern Common Law,9 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV.1 (2004).
[163] Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c. n.218, art.4 [paragraph] 2(1995) (the Italian Private International Law).
[164] RENE DAVID, L'ARBITRAGE DANS LE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 191-99(1982).
[165]收集和发布关于《1980年联合国国际货物销售公约》法院判例的网上数据库主要包括(1)the Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law database is available at http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/database.html; (2) the Unilex database edited by Professor Michael Joachim Bonell of the University of Rome is available at http://www.unilex.info; (3) the UNCITRAL database featuring the CLOUT system is available at http://www.uncitral.org/english/clout/index.htm.
[166] Harold S. Crowter & Anthony G.V. Tobin, Ensuring that Arbitration Remains a Preferred Option for International Dispute Resolution--Some Practical Considerations,19 J. INT'L ARB.301 (2002).
[167] Christopher Drahozal, Of Rabbits and Rhinoceri:A Survey of Empirical Research on International Commercial Arbitration,20 J. INT'L ARB.23,25 (2003).
[168]参见New York Convention Day, June 10,1958, Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the New York Convention-Experience and Prospects, U.N. Sales No. E.99.V.2(1958), available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/NYCDay-e.pdf.
[169] Working Group II.
[170]《在国际商事仲裁领域将来可能的工作：联合国国际贸易法委员会秘书处注释》
[171] Gerold Herrmann, Does the World Need Additional Uniform Legislation on Arbitration?,15 ARB.INT'L 216,236 (1999).
[172] Albert Jan van den Berg, Some Practical Questions Concerning the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, at 212-213 (United Nations ed,1995).
[173] William K. Slate II, The Culture Connection in International Commercial Arbitration,59 DISP. RESOL. J.1,13 (2004).
[174] Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its 35th Session, Supp. No.17, [paragraph] 243,U.N. Doc. A/57/17(June 17-28,2002).
[175] Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its Thirty-seventh Session, Introduction to the Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Sales Convention, [paragraphs] 17-18, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/562 (June 9,2004)
[176] Fritz Enderlein, Uniform Law and Its Application by Judges and Arbitrators, in INTERNATIONAL UNIFORM LAW IN PRACTICE 329 (Unidroit ed.,1988).
[177] Elizabeth H. Patterson, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods:Unification and the Tension between Compromise and Domination,22 STAN. J. INT'L L.263,283(1986).
[178]Bernini,Voices of International Practice,in UNIFORM COMMERCIAL LAW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, at 226(1982).
[179]JEAN-FRANCOIS POUDRET & SEBASTIEN BESSON,DROIT COMPARE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL 443 (2002).
[180] PHILIPPE FOUCHARD, L'ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL(1965).
[181]MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 516 (1990).
[182] JEAN ROBERT, L'ARBITRAGE. DROIT INTERNE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 102 (6th ed.1993).
[183] MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 83 (1990).
[184] MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 79-80(1990).
[185] Cour de cassation [Cass.le civ.] [highest court of origninal jurisdiction], June 28,1989, J.C.P., Ⅱ,20205,111 clunet 598.
[186]Cour de cassation [Cass 2e civ.] [highest court of orginal jurisdiction], Jan.17,1996, in REV. ARB.228 (1996).
[187] Cour de cassation [Cass. le civ.] [highest court of origninal jurisdiction],June 28,1989, J.C.P.,Ⅱ,20205,111 clunet 598.
[188] Philippe Fouchard, Note, REV. ARB.653(1989).
[189] CA Paris, Dec.8,1988, REV. ARB.150(1990).
[190] Charles Jarrosson, Note sous Cour d'Appel de Paris,8 December 1988, REV. ARB.157(1990).
[191] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Cass. le civ., Nov.9,1993,REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE.1994,108.
[192] TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO Ⅲ & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 87 (2d ed.2003).
[193] MATTHIEU DE BOISSESON, LE DROIT FRANCAIS DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNE ET INTERNATIONAL 84-85(1990).
[194] Christian H. Petrus, Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's 1988 Arbitration Act,11 AM. REV. INT'L ARB.397,407-408 (2000).
[195] JEAN ROBERT, L'ARBITRAGE. DROIT INTERNE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 103 (6th ed.1993).
[196] Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, lc ch., Dec.7,1994, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1996,245, note Jarrosson.
[197] William W. Park, Text and Context in International Dispute Resolution,15 B.U. Int'l L.J.191,202 (1997).
[198] Otto Sandrock, To Continue Nationalizing or to De-Nationalize? That is Now the Question in International Arbitration, 12 AM. REV. INT'L ARB.301,308 (2001).
[199]同上。
[200]法国《民事诉讼法典》第1502条规定,“对于准予承认或执行仲裁裁决的判决仅在下列情况下可提起上诉：1.仲裁员在没有仲裁协议或仲裁协议无效或仲裁协议过期的情况下就争议作出裁决；2.仲裁庭组成是不当或者独任仲裁员指定不当；3.仲裁员越权作出仲裁裁决；4.违反正当程序；5.承认或执行违反国际公共政策。”
[201]JEAN ROBERT & THOMAS CARBONNEAU,THE FRENCH LAW OF ARBITRATION at II:2-10,2-11. (Matthew Bender ed.,1983).
[202] Cour de cassation [Cass.le civ.] [highest court of original jurisdiction],July 4,1972, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1974,89, note Philippe Fouchard.
[203]法国关于仲裁的法律规则最与众不同的特点规定在《民事诉讼法典》第2061条,该条规定“如果法律另有规定则仲裁条款无效”。然而,这种限制仅适用于法国《民法典》项下的仲裁协议,因为法国还制定了《商法典》但是《商法典》没有类似的规定。
[204]John J. Barcelo III, Who Decides the Arbitrators'Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1124-1125 (2003).
[205] John J. Barcelo III, Who Decides the Arbitrators'Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1125 (2003).
[206] John J. Barcelo III, Who Decides the Arbitrators'Jurisdiction? Separability and Competence-Competence in Transnational Perspective,36 VAND. J. TRANS'L L.1115,1124 (2003).
[207] Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris,le ch., Dec.13,1975,104 JOURNAL DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL 1977,106.
[208] INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD 3 (Stephanie Marrie & Aloke Ray eds.2004).
[209] Filip D. Ly, Commercial Law as a Refuge from Contract Law:A Comparative and Uniform Law Perspective,45 WAYNE L. REV.1825,1836 (2000).
[210] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Cass. le civ., Dec.20,1993, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1994,116,note Helene Gaudemet-Tallon.
[211]Cour de cassation [Cass.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Cass. le civ., Dec.20,1993, REVUE DE L'ARBITRAGE 1994,116,118,note Helene Gaudemet-Tallon.
[212] Huber, Arbitration Clause "by Reference," in THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT-ITS MULTIFOLD CRITICAL ASPECTS,ASA SPECIAL SERIES,NO.878-888(1994).
[213] United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Record of the 23rd Meeting, U. N. Doc. E/CONF.26/SR.23 (Sept.12,1958), reprinted in INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:NEW YORK CONVENTION III. C.at I.B.3(Giorgio Gaja ed.,1978),表明“在国际贸易中,仲裁协议通常是通过援引包含仲裁条款的格式合同的方式达成的”。
[214] Dr. Peter Schlosser, Report on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol on its Interpretation by the Court of Justice,1979 O.J. (C 59) 71 (Mar.5,1979).
[215] James M. Hosking, The Third Party Non-Signatory's Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration:Doing Justice Without Destroying Consent,4 PEPP. DISP. RESOL. L.J.469,542-543 (2004).
[216] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD & GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 232 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[217]9 U.S.C.[subsection] 201-208(2006).
[218] 9 U.S.C. [section] 205.该条接下来详细规定了法院将争议提交仲裁时应遵守的程序。
[219] David L. Threlkeld & Co. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd.,923 F.2d 245,250 (2d Cir.1991). [220] 417 U.S.506(1974).
[221]473 U.S.614(1985).
[222] Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427(1953).
[223] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,61617(1985).
[224] American Safety Equip. Corp. v. J. P. McGuire & Co,391 F.2d 821,825 (2d Cir.1968) (citing Wilko v. Swan,346 U.S.427,444(1953)).
[225] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrystler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,621(1985).
[226] citing and relying upon Sherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519-520 (1974).
[227] Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1(1972).
[228] New York Convention,Art. V(2)(b).
[229] New York Convention, art. V.
[230] Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno,684 F.2d 184,186-87(1st Cir.1982).
[231]DOMENICO DI PIETRO & MARTIN PLATTE, ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARDS:THE NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958,2001:56-61.
[232] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 14(1981).
i2331关于美国涉及商事保留和《纽约公约》第1条第3款项下商事概念的判例,可参见下列判例,在Francisco v. Stolt Achievement, No. Civ.A.00-3532,2001 WL 290172 (E.D. La. Mar.23,2001)案中,法院认定,船员合同是应适用《纽约公约》的商事关系；在Henry v. Murphy, No. M-82,2002 WL 24307 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.8,2002)案中,法院认定,股东协议是《纽约公约》项下的商事关系；在印度,印度最高法院于1994年2月10日认定,提供咨询服务的协议是商事性质的(参见YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 710-12(1997));孟买高级法院1981年在Indian Organic Chems v. Chemtex Fibres案中(参见YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 371-372(1983)),则将商事保留作了狭义解释,强调只有一项特别的成文法规定涉及到某个特定的法律关系而且将其界定为商事性质时,该事项才能被视为商事的。
[234]9 U.S.C. [section] 202.
[235] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 17(1981).
[236] Intertec Contracting A/S v. Turner Steiner Int'l, S.A., No.98-CV-9116,2000 WL 709004 (S.D.N.Y. May 31,2000), aff'd,6 F. App'x 61 (2d Cir.2001).
[237] Jennifer L. Pilla, Note, Agreeing on Where to Disagree:Jain v. De Mere and International Arbitration Agreements,21 N.C.J. INTL L.& COM. REG.421.
[238] 9 U.S.C. [section] 2.
[239] GARY BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 334-335 (2d ed.2001).
[240] GARY BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 350 (2d ed.2001).
[241]William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INT'L 1282(1996)。
[242] GARY BORN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 332 (2d ed.2001).
[243] William W. Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INT'L 1248-1249(1996).
[244] 460 U.S.1(1983).
[2451465 U.S.1(1984).
[246] Linda R. Hirshman, The Second Arbitration Trilogy:The Federalization of Arbitration Law,71 VA. L. REV.1305, 1378(1985).
[247]482 U.S.483 (1987).
[248] GARY BORN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS 352 (2d ed.2001).
[249] First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938,947(1995);Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc.19 F.3d 1503 (3d Cir.1994).
[250] Barcelo, supra note 35, at 1121.
[251]Susan L. Karamanian, The Road to the Tribunal and Beyond:International Commercial Arbitration and United States Courts,34 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV.20(2002).
[252]关于相反的观点,参见Reuben, supra note 291,at 870-79(关于联邦法律系统不再采纳仲裁条款独立原则并且应逐步消失的建议)“正如我们所看到的,《联邦仲裁法》法律解释的传统规则和立法历史并没有强制规定仲裁条款独立原则,而且仲裁条款独立原则也不是实体合同法的规定。相反,正如罗奥教授论证的,仲裁条款独立原则仅仅是“主要根据功能性的考量”而作出的一个司法政策选择。”麦克尼尔教授也认为,这种司法政策选择可以走另一条路：“什么都无法阻止审理PrimaPaint案的法院认定仲裁协议独立于包含该仲裁协议的主合同。”随着近三十五年实施仲裁条款独立原则带来的好处、“新仲裁”的产生以及法院自身明显的关于可仲裁性问题向真实合意的倾斜,法院应重新回顾该政策选择上,并且通过拒绝仲裁条款独立原则重建议会于1925年作出的政策选择,将那些双方当事人没有“明确无误地”给予仲裁庭解决的可仲裁性问题返回法院解决。
[253]6 P.3d 669,688-94(Cal.2000).
[254]Jeffrey W. Stempel, Arbitration, Unconscionability and Equilibrium:The Return of Unconscionability Analysis As a Counterweight to Arbitration Formalism,19 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL.757,762-63 (2004).
[255] First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938,944(1995).
[256] Susan L. Karamanian, The Road to the Tribunal and Beyond:International Commercial Arbitration and United States Courts,34 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV.62(2002).
[257]参见Cass., sez. un.,13 Dec.1971,n.3620, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 190(1976),该案列举了意大利最高法院裁定《意大利民法典》第1341条和第1342条效力优先于《纽约公约》第2条第2款的很多判例；另参见Cass., sez. un.,25 May 1976, n.1877, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 278(1978),在该案中,意大利最高法院将《纽约公约》第2条第2款解读为,要求“双方当事人签署的或者包含在互换函电中的”提交仲裁的特别协议,因为在该案中合同格式上打印的仲裁条款中找不到这种“特别协议”,并且找不到双方当事人的签字,最高法院判定仲裁协议无效,意大利法院对该案有管辖权。
[258]Cass. (I), sez. un.,22 May 1995, n.5601,YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 611(1996).
[259] Cass.,2 marzo 1996, n.1649, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 734(1997).
[260] Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c., n.218, art.4, [paragraph] 2(1995).
[261]《意大利民法典》第1341条规定：“1.一方当事人事前准备的标准条件,如果另一方当事人在缔结合同时知道该标准条件或者通过合理的谨慎应当知道,则该标准条件有效；2.无论如何,对事前准备标准条件的一方当事人有利的条款、限制责任的条款…仲裁条款或者减轻司法机构权力的条款,除非以书面方式特别加以批准,否则一概无效。”Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c., n.262, art.1341(1995).
[262]《意大利民法典》第1342条规定：“为了以统一的方式规制某些合同关系,合同都是通过签署由一方当事人事前准备的格式文件而达成,如果有新添加的条款,而新添加的条款与格式文件中原来的条款不一致,则以新添加的条款为准。”Il Codice Civile Italiano, C.c.,n.262, art.1342(1995).
[263] Cass.,18 April 2003, n.6349.
[264]Cass.,28 October 1993, n.10704, YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 739(1995).
[265] Cass., sez. un.,10 March 2000, n.58, XXVI YEARBOOK COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 816 (2001).
[266] Supreme Court, sez. Un.,28 July 1998, n.7398, Foro It.11998, under Arbitrato n.68.
[267] ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 199(1981).
[268] ADAM SAMUEL, JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN, DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS, U.S. AND WEST GERMAN LAW 96(1989).
[269] ADAM SAMUEL,JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:A STUDY OF BELGIAN, DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SWEDISH, SWISS, U.S. AND WEST GERMAN LAW 1918 (1989).
[270] TIBOR VARADY, JOHN BARCELO III & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN,INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 89 (2d ed.2003).
[271]W. MICHEAL REISMAN,SYSTEMS OF CONTROL IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION AND ARBITRATION:BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR 113(1992).
[272] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S.614,638(1985).
[273] Mayer Pierre, "laU" 1989-v P.327 AT P.339.
[274] Judgment of 18 May 1971,Case. Civ. Ire,1971 Bull.Civ.1,No.161,p.134(Fr.);also,Carlos E. Alfaro & Flavia Guimarey, op. cit.,p.419转引自赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督.北京：法律出版社,2000：89.
[275] CA Paris, Mar.9,1972, Lefrere v. SA Les Petroles Pursan,,1972 RTD COM.344.
[276] Dimolitsa, Antonias, Separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 years of Application of the New York Convention,International Council for Commercial Arbitration, 1999:238.
[277] Civil 1st,25 Apr 2006, Rev. Arb.79 (2007).
[278]1983年《法国民事诉讼法典》第1458条第2款规定,“如果当事人尚未将有关仲裁协议效力的争议提交仲裁庭,法院也应宣告其无管辖权,除非仲裁协议明显地无效。”
[279]《法国民事程序法典》第1502条规定：就国际商事仲裁裁决而言,“如果不存在有效的仲裁协议或者仲裁员是根据无效的或者失效的仲裁协议作出仲裁裁决……”,那么法国法院将拒绝承认与执行。
[280]明显地不能实行这个例外并没有规定在第1458条第2款中,而是由法国最高院在判例中确立的。参见Supreme Court, Civil 1st,16 Oct 2001,Bull Civ.I,254; Rev. Arb.919 (2002).
[281]Philippe Fouchard,"La cooperation du President du Tribunalde Grande Instance s l'arbitrage,"Rev. Arb.1985, p.27.
[282] Herrera Petrus, Christian, "Spanish Perspectives on the Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability:A Comparative Analysis of Spain's Arbitration Act,"The American Review of International Arbitration,vol.11,2000:.408.
[283]如示范法第16条第3款；美国仲裁协会2001年仲裁规则第15条第3款；伦敦国际仲裁院1998年仲裁规则第23条第3款。
[284] Emmanuel Gaillard,'L'effet negatif de la competence-competence', in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution-Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner at at 391 et seq, ICC Pub. No.693 (2005). the decision of the French Cour de Cassation (Ire civ.) of 5 January 1999, Zanzi v. de Coninck,1999(2) Rev. arb.262; the decisions of the French Cour de Cassation (Ire civ.) of 1 December 1999,2000(1)Rev. arb.98.
[285] Cass, le civ.,26 June 2001,2001(3) Rev. arb.529.
[286] Cass. le civ.,7 June 2006, Copropriete Maritime Jules Verne v. American Bureau of Shipping,2006(4) Rev. orb.945, at 946-947.
[287] CA Paris,4 December 2002, American Bureau of Shipping v. Coproprietd Maritime Jules Verne,2003(4) Rev. arb. 1286, with note by E. Gaillard at 1290,18(12) Int'l Arb. Rep. D-1(2003), ⅩⅩⅨ Y.B. Com. Arb.657 (2004).
[2881 Societe V 200 v Societe P roeject XJ 220 ITd et al.,Rev. arb.1996:235.
[289] Dimolitsa, Antonias, "Separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 years of Application of the New York Convention," International Council for Commercial Arbitration,1999: 239.
[290] The Similarity of aims in the American and French Legal System with respect to arbitrators's powers to determine their jurisdiction, report of ICCA Congress, Montreal May-June 2006:4.
[291]Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA DTF 121(1995) Ⅲ 38.
[292]《纽约公约》第2条第3款：如果缔约国的法院受理一个案件,而就这案件所涉及的事项,当事人已经达成本条意义内的协议时,除非该法院查明该项协议是无效的、未生效的或不能履行的,应该依一方当事人的请求,令当事人把案件提交仲裁。
[293] Park William W, "The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v Kaplan; What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz has crossed the Atlantic?" Arbitration International,LCIA, vol.12, no.2 1996:151.
[294] Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M. v. Banque X., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull.527;另见C.U. Mayer at 1996(3) ASA Bull.361.
[295]《1987年瑞士国际私法典》第7条第b款；《纽约公约》第2条第3款。
[296] Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull, at 531.
[297] Swiss Fed. Trib.,29 April 1996, Fondation M., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull, at 532.
[298] Emmanuel Gaillard,'La reconnaissance, en droit suisse, de la seconde moitie du principe d'effet negatif de la competence-competence', in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution-Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner at H 319 et seq, ICC Pub. No.693 (2005);Andreas Bucher,'L'examen de la competence internationale par le juge suisse',2007 La semaine judiciaire 153, in particular at 173 et seq.
[299] Jean-Francois Poudret,'Exception d'arbitrage et litispendance en droit suisse-Comment departager le juge et l'arbitre?', 25(2) ASA Bull.230 (2007); Jean-Francois Poudret, Note following the Swiss Federal Tribunal's decision of 14 May 2001 in Fomento de Construcciones,2001(4) Rev. arb.835.
[300]Case no.4p.284-1995, decision of 17 August 1995 by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
[301]Karrer, Piere and Kalin-Nauer, Claudia,Is there a Fvour Iurisdictionis Arbitri? Standards of Review of Arbitral Jurisdiction Decisions in Switzerland,Journal of International Arbitration,13(3),1996:31-38.
[302] European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961,484 U.N.T.S.349, art. VI(3)(1961).
[303] FOUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN,ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION [paragraphs] 674 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[304]《法国民事程序法典》第1458条。
[305] New York Convention, art.I(1).
[306] ALBERT J. VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958 155,169(1981).
[307] Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler,473 U.S.614,615(1985); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 (1974).
[308]1987年瑞士国际私法典第191条。
[309]参见第6条和第34条第2款。
[310] HOWARD M. HOLTZMANN & JOSEPH E. NEUHAUS, A GUIDE TO THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMENTARY 303(1989).
[311]《纽约公约》第2条第3款规定“如果缔约国的法院受理了一个案件,而该案当事人已经就该案涉及的争议达成了本条意义上的仲裁协议,那么除非法院查明该仲裁协议无效、失效或者不能履行,否则应该依一方当事人的请求,责令当事人将该案提交仲裁。”
[312] ALBERT J. VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958 155(1981).
[313] FUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN, ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION [paragraph] 675 (citing at n.136 Swiss Fed. Trib., Apr.29,1996, Fondation M. v. Banque X.,1996 BULL. ASA 527, and the note by C.U. Mayer at 361;1996 REV. SUISSE DR. INT. ET DR. EUR.586, and observations by F. Knoepfler).Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999.
[314] Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of Its Eighteenth Session, U.N. GAOR,40th Sess. Supp. No.17, Annex, at 1 U.N. Dec. A/40/17(1985), reprinted in 1 MODEL ARB.L. Q. REP.101,134 (1995).
[315]Pacific Int'l Lines Ltd. v. Tsinlien Metals & Minerals Co.,18 Y.B. INT'L ARB.180,185-186(S.C.H.K.1992).
[316] Rio Algom Ltd. v. Sammi Steel Co.,18 Y.B. INT'L ARB.166,170-171 (Ont. Ct. Justice 1991).
[317]UNCITRAL,Status of 1985-UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitratibn/1985Model_arbitration_status.html
[318] Klaus P. Berger, The New German Arbitration Law in International Perspective,26 FORUM INTERNATIONALE 8-9 (2000).
[319] A.Sanuel, Jurisdictional Problems in International Commercial Arbitration:a Study of Belgain, DUTCH, English, French, Swedish, Swiss.U.S. AND West German Law(1989),pp 179-189.
[320] Schlosser,Peter, The Competence of Arbitrators and of courts, Arbitration International 189,1992:199-200. See also Berger, Klaus Peter, International Commercial Arbitration,1993:359.
[321] Klaus P. Berger, Germany Adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law,1 INT'L ARB. L. REV.121,122(1998).
[322] Park, William W, report "An Arbitrator's Jurisdition to Determine Jurisdiction,"ICCA Congress, Montreal May-Hune 2006:66.
[323] Park, William W, report "An Arbitrator's Jurisdition to Determine Jurisdiction,"ICCA Congress, Montreal May-Hune 2006:67.
[324] Decision of 13 January 2005, reported NJW 16/2005 AT 1125.
[325] Peter Schlosser, La nouvelle legislation allemande sur l'arbitrage,1998 REV. ARB.291,298.
[326] German 2000/2. Recht und Praxis Shiedsgerichtsbarkeit 13.An abstract is punblished in www. Uncitral. org. case 373 MAL(art.16).
[327]《1996年仲裁法》第4条第2款。
[328]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第1款。
[329]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第2款。
[330]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第3款。
[331]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第4款。
[332]《1996年仲裁法》第31条第5款。
[333]英国《1996年仲裁法》第32条第2款。
[334] Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose & Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996:A Commentary, second edition, p166,Blackwell Science Ltd,2000.
[335][199]2 Lloyd's Rep.24.
[336] Report of The Commercial Court and Admiralty Court,2005-2006:10.
[337] Azov Shipping Co. v. Baltic Shipping Co.[1999]1 Lloyd's Rep.68 and[1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep.159; Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose & Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996:A Commentary, second edition, p300,Blackwell Science Ltd, 2000.
[338] Arbitration Act,1996, [section] 9(4) (Eng.), reprinted in 36 I.L.M.155(1997).
[339] Downing v. Al Tameer Establishment [2002] EWCA Civ721,.31;Al-Naimi v. Islamic Press Agency [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep.522,525;Law Debenture Trust Corp. Pic. Elektrim Finance BV [2005] EWHC1412, J 34 (Ch); Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2006] EWHC 2583,129 (Comm). See also Jan Paulsson,'Arbitration-Friendliness:Promises of Principle and Realities of Practice', paper presented at the International Financial Services London Conference:'Has LondonMet the Challenge?', London,1 December 2006.
[340] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40.
[341]《1996年仲裁法》第9条中止诉讼“(1)若仲裁协议项下的一方当事人被对方就仲裁协议项下的争议提起了诉讼(无论是本诉还是反诉),在该当事人(在向对方发出通知后)可以向受理诉讼的法院提出申请,请求法院中止有关上述事项的诉讼程序。(4)当事人依本条向法院提出申请,法院应中止诉讼,除非法院查明仲裁协议无效、失效或者不能实行。”
[342] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40, J 37.
[343] Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40, J 135.
[344] International Dispute Resolution Centre,简称IDRC, http://www.idrc.co.uk.
[345] Bruce Harris, Report On The England Arbitration Act 1996, ICMA XVI Congress Papers, Printed in Singapore by The Print Lodge Pte Ltd,2007:7.
[346] Mr Paul Arditti, Ince and Co,Member of the Commercial Court Users'Committee.p20.2.
[347] First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan,514 U.S.938(1995).
[348] Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,537 U.S.79 (2002).
[349] NCITRAL Arbitration Rules G.A. Res.98, U.N. GAOR,21st Sess. Supp. No17, U.N. Doc. A.RES/31/98 art.21 (1976); American Arbitration Association International Rules of 2001,art.15 (2001),available at http://www.adr.org; London Court of International Arbitration Rules of 1998 art.23(1998), available at http://www.lcia-arbitration.com/lc.
[350] Willam Park, The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan:What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,12 ARB.INTL 137,147(1996).
[351]FOUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN, ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION [paragraphs] 658 (Emmanuel Gaillard & John Savage eds.,1999).
[352]Klaus P. Berger, Germany Adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law,1 INT'L ARB.L. REV.121,122(1998).
[353]韩健.论国际商事仲裁中的管辖权异议问题.中国国际私法与比较法年刊(第3卷).北京：法律出版社,2000：477-
[354]王勇.我国国际商事仲裁中的管辖树管辖权原则之再述评—兼与宁敏、宋连斌先生商榷.当代法学，2000(2).
[355]全国人大常委会法制工作委员会胡康生主任,2004年10月在纪念仲裁法颁布10周年大会上讲话摘录。
[356]参见我国《仲裁法》第14条。
[357]朱志国.中国仲裁基础.北京：警官教育出版社,1997：195.
[358]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002：37.
[359]杨玲.论仲裁机构的法律地位—兼谈我国仲裁法的修改.仲裁与法律.2005：53.
[360]乔欣.仲裁程序公正与权利保障——仲裁权研究.北京：法律出版社,2001：146.
[361]赵健.回顾与展望：世纪之交的中国国际商事仲裁.仲裁与法律.2001：35.
[362]王生长.适用CIETAC新规则进行仲裁.大律师网.http://www.chinalawyer.org.cn/xueshu/ShowConfArticle.asp?id=236.
[363]王生长.中国特色的仲裁管辖权决定制度—成就和问题.仲裁与法律.2003(5)：10.
[364]周清华,李海跃.以仲裁的价值取向为视角解析CIETAC 2005年仲裁规则.辽宁大学学报哲学社会科学版.2007(3)：148.
[365]参见法释[1998]27号,1998年10月21日最高人民法院审判委员会第1029次会议通过,1998年10月26日最高人民法院公告公布,自1998年11月5日起施行。
[366]参见法释[2006]7号,2005年12月26日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1375次会议通过,2005年8月236日最高人民法院公告公布,自2006年9月8日起施行。
[367]参见法发[1995]18号,2005年12月26日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1375次会议通过,1995年08月28日最高人民法院公告公布,自1995年08月28日起施行。
[368]高雅.试论国际商事仲裁协议的效力认定主体——兼评中国的立法与实践.法律研究,2005：11.
[369]王生长.中国特色的仲裁管辖权决定制度.仲裁与法律.2003,5：14.
[370]参见《示范法》第8条第2款；德国民事程序法第1032条第3款。
[371]William Park, The Arbitrator's Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction, in ICCA Congress Series No.13, International Arbitration 2006:Back to Basics 89.
[372] P. Fouchard, E. Gaillard & B. Goldman, On International Commercial Arbitration, in Title of the book para 682 (E. Gaillard & J. Savage eds.,1999).
[373] 215 F.3d 151 (2d Cir.2003).
[374] Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M. Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-16 (2003).
[375] Thomas Carbonneau, The Law and Practice of Arbitration,189 (2nd ed 2007); Fouchard, Gaillard & Goldman, supra note 2, at 650 et seq; Julian D. M. Lew, Mistelis & Kroll, supra note 2, at 14-13 et seq
[376]Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M.Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-13 (2003).
[377] Julian D. M. Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis & Stefan M.Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 14-16 (2003).
[378] the recent Opinion of the Advocate General in the Case C85/07 Allianz SpA (formerly Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA) v. West Tankers (delivered on 4 September 2008), where is was rightly pointed out:" It is also not obvious why such examination [NB review of the validity of the arbitration agreement] should be reserved to the arbitral body alone."