仲裁员法律责任制度初探
|
摘要
随着ADR的兴起,仲裁制度在法学理论和法治实践中的作用越来越重要。但在其高速发展的同时,也出现了诸多问题。很多纠纷当事人不选择仲裁,并非对自治、高效、专业等这些仲裁的天生优势的漠视,而是对我国仲裁缺乏一套完善的监督体系、救济措施和责任体系的担忧,一裁终局演变成一种貌似赌博的一锤定音。如何保障仲裁的公正和质量,成了我国仲裁业面临的突出问题。仲裁员法律责任制度作为内在制约机制直接对仲裁员的行为进行规制,应该发挥关键作用。但到目前为止,国内外的理论和立法都此问题进行系统的阐述和规定。
研究仲裁员法律责任制度必须先明确仲裁员法律责任的含义。仲裁员法律责任、仲裁机构法律责任、仲裁责任和仲裁员民事责任是四个容易混淆的概念。它们之间的科学关系是:仲裁责任包含仲裁法律责任,仲裁法律责任包括仲裁员法律责任和仲裁机构法律责任。仲裁员法律责任包括仲裁员民事责任和仲裁员刑事责任。
仲裁员法律责任制度具有深厚的理论基础。从宏观而言,仲裁员承担法律责任的考量因素有三:仲裁权的准司法性和民间性双重属性;政治国家和市民社会、公正性和独立性这两对价值在仲裁员法律责任制度中的冲突与平衡;仲裁员法律责任具体建构的基础:仲裁员义务体系。从具体责任类型而言,仲裁员与当事人的关系是仲裁员民事责任的理论基础,仲裁员与当事人的关系应该放入一个更宏观的关系网中进行考察,他们之间不存在直接的准司法或契约关系,而是通过仲裁机构形成一种间接的再授权关系。仲裁员承担刑事责任也有很深的理论基础。
现有的理论对仲裁员法律责任的具体制度研究很少,只有建构具体的仲裁员法律责任制度,才能使这个制度具有操作性。仲裁员民事责任的构成要件、具体情形和仲裁员承担民事责任的方式和程序是仲裁员民事责任制度的重要内容。仲裁员刑事责任的关键内容在于仲裁员刑事责任的构成要件、立案管辖和类型。
我国立法仅有两个条文对仲裁员法律责任进行规定,即《仲裁法》第38条和《刑法修正案(六)》对“枉法仲裁罪”的规定,虽然这两个条文从一定层面具有进步意义。但由于规定较为粗疏,可操作性不强,在实践中发挥的作用不大。我们应该在完善我国现在立法的基础上,构建一个既有理论基础又容易操作的多层次的仲裁员法律责任体系:仲裁员不承担行政责任、在极少的情况下承担刑事责任,在一定的情况下承担民事责任,在最广泛的情形下承担行业责任。
Following with ADR’s prosperous, the arbitration system is getting more and more important in the legal science theory and the legal practice's function. But during its high speed development, there also had many problems.The reson that caused many dispute litigants do not choose the way of arbitration, it is not ignoring of arbitration's inborn superiority, autonomous, highly effective, specialty, etc, but the worrying of lacking a set of perfect surveillance system, the relief measures and responsibility system, as soon as cuts the result to evolve one kind to apparent gambling to give the final word. How to safeguard the fair and the quality of arbitration has become the prominent question of country arbitrates industry. The arbitrator legal liability system takes the intrinsic restriction mechanism to carry on the rules and regulations directly to arbitrator's behavior, it should play the crucial role. But so far, the domestic and foreign theories and legislative all did not elaborate and stipulate ystematically.
Be clear about the arbitrator legal liability should be the first thing to study the arbitrator legal liability system. The arbitrator's legal liability, the arbitration facilities' legal liability, the arbitration responsibility and the arbitrator civil liability are the concepts which are easy to confuse. The science relations between them are: The arbitration responsibility contains the arbitration legal liability, the arbitration legal liability including the arbitrator legal liability and the arbitration facilities legal liability. Arbitrator legal liability including arbitrator civil liability and arbitrator legal responsibility.
The arbitrator legal liability system has deep rationale. Macroscopically saying, there are three consideration factor of the arbitrator undertaking the legal liability : Arbitration power's dual attributes of accurate judicature and folk ; The conflict and balance between political country and residential society, fairness and independent; The construction foundation of Arbitrator legal liability: Arbitrator duty system. Says from the concrete responsibility type, the arbitrator and litigant's relations are the arbitrator civil liability rationale, the arbitrator and litigant's relations should put in a macroscopic relationship network to carry on the inspection, there's no direct accurate judicature or the contractual relationship between them, but forms one kind of indirect authorized relations through the arbitration facilities. The arbitrator's undertaking the legal responsibility also have the very deep rationale.
The research of the arbitrator legal liability's concrete system is very few in the existing theory, but only construct the concrete arbitrator legal liability system can enable this system to have operationally. The improtant constitution document of arbitrator civil, the concrete situation and the way and the procedure of arbitrator undertaking the civil liability are the arbitrator civil liability system's important contents. The arbitrator legal responsibility's essential content lies in the constitution important document of arbitrator legal responsibility, puting on record to have jurisdiction and the type.
In our country, there are only two articles to carry on the stipulation of the arbitrator legal liability, namely "Arbitration act" 38th " and "Criminal law Bill for amendment(Six) " stipulate the "the crime of distorting the law to arbitrate”, although these two articles have the progressive significance from certain stratification plane. But because of stipulation's careless and the feasibility is not strong, the function is not obvious in reality displays. So,we should construct a Arbitrator legal liability system in the foundation of consummating our country legislates, that both has the rationale and easily to operate : The arbitrator does not undertake the administrative responsibility, to undertake the legal responsibility in the extremely few situations, undertakes the civil liability in certain situation, undertakes the profession responsibility under the most widespread situation.
研究仲裁员法律责任制度必须先明确仲裁员法律责任的含义。仲裁员法律责任、仲裁机构法律责任、仲裁责任和仲裁员民事责任是四个容易混淆的概念。它们之间的科学关系是:仲裁责任包含仲裁法律责任,仲裁法律责任包括仲裁员法律责任和仲裁机构法律责任。仲裁员法律责任包括仲裁员民事责任和仲裁员刑事责任。
仲裁员法律责任制度具有深厚的理论基础。从宏观而言,仲裁员承担法律责任的考量因素有三:仲裁权的准司法性和民间性双重属性;政治国家和市民社会、公正性和独立性这两对价值在仲裁员法律责任制度中的冲突与平衡;仲裁员法律责任具体建构的基础:仲裁员义务体系。从具体责任类型而言,仲裁员与当事人的关系是仲裁员民事责任的理论基础,仲裁员与当事人的关系应该放入一个更宏观的关系网中进行考察,他们之间不存在直接的准司法或契约关系,而是通过仲裁机构形成一种间接的再授权关系。仲裁员承担刑事责任也有很深的理论基础。
现有的理论对仲裁员法律责任的具体制度研究很少,只有建构具体的仲裁员法律责任制度,才能使这个制度具有操作性。仲裁员民事责任的构成要件、具体情形和仲裁员承担民事责任的方式和程序是仲裁员民事责任制度的重要内容。仲裁员刑事责任的关键内容在于仲裁员刑事责任的构成要件、立案管辖和类型。
我国立法仅有两个条文对仲裁员法律责任进行规定,即《仲裁法》第38条和《刑法修正案(六)》对“枉法仲裁罪”的规定,虽然这两个条文从一定层面具有进步意义。但由于规定较为粗疏,可操作性不强,在实践中发挥的作用不大。我们应该在完善我国现在立法的基础上,构建一个既有理论基础又容易操作的多层次的仲裁员法律责任体系:仲裁员不承担行政责任、在极少的情况下承担刑事责任,在一定的情况下承担民事责任,在最广泛的情形下承担行业责任。
Following with ADR’s prosperous, the arbitration system is getting more and more important in the legal science theory and the legal practice's function. But during its high speed development, there also had many problems.The reson that caused many dispute litigants do not choose the way of arbitration, it is not ignoring of arbitration's inborn superiority, autonomous, highly effective, specialty, etc, but the worrying of lacking a set of perfect surveillance system, the relief measures and responsibility system, as soon as cuts the result to evolve one kind to apparent gambling to give the final word. How to safeguard the fair and the quality of arbitration has become the prominent question of country arbitrates industry. The arbitrator legal liability system takes the intrinsic restriction mechanism to carry on the rules and regulations directly to arbitrator's behavior, it should play the crucial role. But so far, the domestic and foreign theories and legislative all did not elaborate and stipulate ystematically.
Be clear about the arbitrator legal liability should be the first thing to study the arbitrator legal liability system. The arbitrator's legal liability, the arbitration facilities' legal liability, the arbitration responsibility and the arbitrator civil liability are the concepts which are easy to confuse. The science relations between them are: The arbitration responsibility contains the arbitration legal liability, the arbitration legal liability including the arbitrator legal liability and the arbitration facilities legal liability. Arbitrator legal liability including arbitrator civil liability and arbitrator legal responsibility.
The arbitrator legal liability system has deep rationale. Macroscopically saying, there are three consideration factor of the arbitrator undertaking the legal liability : Arbitration power's dual attributes of accurate judicature and folk ; The conflict and balance between political country and residential society, fairness and independent; The construction foundation of Arbitrator legal liability: Arbitrator duty system. Says from the concrete responsibility type, the arbitrator and litigant's relations are the arbitrator civil liability rationale, the arbitrator and litigant's relations should put in a macroscopic relationship network to carry on the inspection, there's no direct accurate judicature or the contractual relationship between them, but forms one kind of indirect authorized relations through the arbitration facilities. The arbitrator's undertaking the legal responsibility also have the very deep rationale.
The research of the arbitrator legal liability's concrete system is very few in the existing theory, but only construct the concrete arbitrator legal liability system can enable this system to have operationally. The improtant constitution document of arbitrator civil, the concrete situation and the way and the procedure of arbitrator undertaking the civil liability are the arbitrator civil liability system's important contents. The arbitrator legal responsibility's essential content lies in the constitution important document of arbitrator legal responsibility, puting on record to have jurisdiction and the type.
In our country, there are only two articles to carry on the stipulation of the arbitrator legal liability, namely "Arbitration act" 38th " and "Criminal law Bill for amendment(Six) " stipulate the "the crime of distorting the law to arbitrate”, although these two articles have the progressive significance from certain stratification plane. But because of stipulation's careless and the feasibility is not strong, the function is not obvious in reality displays. So,we should construct a Arbitrator legal liability system in the foundation of consummating our country legislates, that both has the rationale and easily to operate : The arbitrator does not undertake the administrative responsibility, to undertake the legal responsibility in the extremely few situations, undertakes the civil liability in certain situation, undertakes the profession responsibility under the most widespread situation.
引文
[1]王超.富士施乐案仲裁员遭终身禁入[EB].(2006-3-6) [2007-6-21] http://www.p5w.net/news/cjxw.htm.
[2]宋连斌.仲裁理论与实务[M].北京:湖南大学出版社,2005:105.
[3]张文显.法理学[M].北京;高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社,1999:122.
[4]张文显.法理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社,1999:126.
[5]张文显.法理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社,1999:126.
[6]刘金国,舒国滢.法理学教科书[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:144.
[7]徐前权.论仲裁委员会的法律地位及其性质[J].荆州师专学报(社科版).1996,(3):54.
[8]宋朝武.中国仲裁制度:问题与对策[M].北京:经济日报出版社,2001:69.
[9]梁淑妍.关于仲裁员责任制度的思考[J].中国海商法年刊第13卷.2002:292.
[10]乔欣.仲裁权研究——仲裁程序公正与权利保障[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:31.
[11]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁资料精选[M].北京;知识产权出版社,2004:218
[12] (日)三月章.日本民事诉讼法[M],汪一凡,译.中国台湾:五南图书出版公司,1997:9.
[13] (奥)凯尔森.法与国家的一般理论[M].沈宗灵,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995:73.
[14] Compagnic Europeene de Cereals SA v.Tradax Export SA,[1986]2 Loyd’s Report.301.
[15] Qualiconsult v. Groupe Lincoln. CA Paris.[1996] Dec 19.
[16]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[17]杨良宜.国际商务仲裁[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997:421.
[18]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践[M].北京:法律出版社.2000:36.
[19]石现名.仲裁员民事责任及其豁免之学理探析[J].民主与法制.2007(2):46.
[20]康明.商事仲裁服务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005:50.
[21]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑)[M].北京:中国统计出版社,1994 :116.
[22]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[23]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑)[M].北京:中国统计出版社,1994:129.
[24]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[25]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[26]黄雅萍.仲裁员责任制度研究[A].//韩健.涉外仲裁司法审查[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:271.
[27] Andrew T. Guzman. Arbitrator Liability: Reconciling Arbitration and MandatoryRules.[J]. Duke Law Journal. 2000(3):1279.
[28]郭寿康,赵秀文.国际经济贸易仲裁法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999:205.
[29] Andrew T. Guzman. Arbitrator Liability: Reconciling Arbitration and Mandatory Rules.[J]. Duke Law Journal. 2000(3):1280.
[30]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁新资料选编[M].武汉:武汉出版社,2001:215
[31]宋连斌.仲裁理论与实务[M].长沙:湖南大学出版社,2005:102.
[32]田凯.公权介入仲裁须慎重[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(8).
[33]高菲,董纯钢.“枉法仲裁罪”刍议[J].中国仲裁,2005,(6).
[34]夏思扬.枉法仲裁该不该受刑法调整[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(6).
[35]田凯.公权介入仲裁须慎重[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(8).
[36]屈芥民.专家民事责任论[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,1998年:52页.
[37]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑)[M].北京:中国统计出版社,1994:126.
[38]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁新资料选编[M].武汉:武汉出版社,2001:215
[39]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁资料精选[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2004:142.
[40]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002:146.
[41]王利明.民法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:130.
[42] L&H Airco,Inc. v. Rapistan Corp.[1989] 446 N.W.2d 372,Minn.
[43]日本国仲裁法.日本安德森·毛利律师事务所译.梁华,杨帆监修.仲裁与法律第95辑,2005:133.
[44] (日)大土冢仁.刑法该说(各论).冯军译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:588-602.
[45]陈光中.刑事诉讼法.北京:北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社,2002:6.
[46]向琼芳.完善我国仲裁员的民事责任制度.2007年华东政法学院硕士学位论文:39.
[1]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[2]张艳丽.中国商事仲裁制度有关问题及透析[M].北京:中国工人出版社,2000.
[3]谭兵.中国仲裁制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,1995.
[4]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[5]王利民.违约责任论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[6]宋朝武.中国仲裁制度:问题与对策[M].北京:经济日报出版社,2001.
[7]张艳丽.中国商事仲裁制度——有关问题及透析[M].北京:中国工人出版社,2000.
[8]谭兵.中国仲裁制度的改革与完善[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[9]袁忠民.中国仲裁制度[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1991.
[10]宋连斌.仲裁理论与实务[M].长沙:湖南大学出版社,2005.
[11]乔欣.仲裁权研究——仲裁程序公正与权利保障[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[12]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁资料精选[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2004.
[13]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994.
[14]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[1]黄志勇.试论仲裁员的民事赔偿责任[J].求索.2004,(12).
[2]徐前权.论仲裁委员会的法律地位及其性质[J].荆州师专学报(社科版).1996,(3).
[3]黄志勇.仲裁员的民事赔偿在责任之比较[J].仲裁研究第二辑.
[4]夏思扬.枉法裁判不应规定为犯罪列入刑法[N].检察日报,2006-01-24.(8).
[5]田凯.公权介入仲裁须慎重[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(7).
[6]勾永才.试论仲裁责任.中国第3届仲裁研讨会论文.
[7]徐前权.枉法仲裁罪之批判[J].广西民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版).2006,(3).
[8]马永才.仲裁员的责任要论[J].兰州商学院学报.2002,(3).
[9]孙珺.德国仲裁立法改革[J].外国法译评.1999,(1).
[10]萧凯.从富士施乐仲裁案看仲裁员的操守与责任[J].法学.2006,(10).
[11]张榕.论完善我国的仲裁制度[J].现代法学.1995,(5).
[12]张宗浩.“民事责任”的解读及重构[J].学术交流.2006,( 7).
[13]徐前权.仲裁员法律责任之检讨——兼评“枉法仲裁罪”[J].仲裁研究第九辑.
[14]陈桂明.诉讼公正与程序保障——民事诉讼程序优化的法哲学探讨[J].政法论坛.1995,(5).
[15]刘云兵.仲裁法的主要法理及对修正我国仲裁法的建议[J].上海铁道大学学报.2000,(7).
[16]石现名.仲裁员民事责任及其豁免之学理探析[J].民主与法制.2007,(2).
[17]尹灿.论仲裁员责任.华东政法学院2007年硕士学位论文.
[18]向琼芳.完善我国仲裁员的民事责任制度.华东政法学院2007年硕士学位论文.
[19]张远毅.我国律师民事责任制度研究.中国政法大学2006年硕士学位论文.
[1] Matthew Rasmussan .Overextending Immunity :Arbitral Institutional Liability in the United States. 26 Fordhan International Law Journal.2003(6).
[2] Andrew T. Guzman. Arbitrator Liability: Reconciling Arbitration and Mandatory Rules.[J]. Duke Law Journal. 2000(3).
[2]宋连斌.仲裁理论与实务[M].北京:湖南大学出版社,2005:105.
[3]张文显.法理学[M].北京;高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社,1999:122.
[4]张文显.法理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社,1999:126.
[5]张文显.法理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社,1999:126.
[6]刘金国,舒国滢.法理学教科书[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:144.
[7]徐前权.论仲裁委员会的法律地位及其性质[J].荆州师专学报(社科版).1996,(3):54.
[8]宋朝武.中国仲裁制度:问题与对策[M].北京:经济日报出版社,2001:69.
[9]梁淑妍.关于仲裁员责任制度的思考[J].中国海商法年刊第13卷.2002:292.
[10]乔欣.仲裁权研究——仲裁程序公正与权利保障[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:31.
[11]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁资料精选[M].北京;知识产权出版社,2004:218
[12] (日)三月章.日本民事诉讼法[M],汪一凡,译.中国台湾:五南图书出版公司,1997:9.
[13] (奥)凯尔森.法与国家的一般理论[M].沈宗灵,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995:73.
[14] Compagnic Europeene de Cereals SA v.Tradax Export SA,[1986]2 Loyd’s Report.301.
[15] Qualiconsult v. Groupe Lincoln. CA Paris.[1996] Dec 19.
[16]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[17]杨良宜.国际商务仲裁[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997:421.
[18]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践[M].北京:法律出版社.2000:36.
[19]石现名.仲裁员民事责任及其豁免之学理探析[J].民主与法制.2007(2):46.
[20]康明.商事仲裁服务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005:50.
[21]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑)[M].北京:中国统计出版社,1994 :116.
[22]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[23]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑)[M].北京:中国统计出版社,1994:129.
[24]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[25]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994:107.
[26]黄雅萍.仲裁员责任制度研究[A].//韩健.涉外仲裁司法审查[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:271.
[27] Andrew T. Guzman. Arbitrator Liability: Reconciling Arbitration and MandatoryRules.[J]. Duke Law Journal. 2000(3):1279.
[28]郭寿康,赵秀文.国际经济贸易仲裁法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999:205.
[29] Andrew T. Guzman. Arbitrator Liability: Reconciling Arbitration and Mandatory Rules.[J]. Duke Law Journal. 2000(3):1280.
[30]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁新资料选编[M].武汉:武汉出版社,2001:215
[31]宋连斌.仲裁理论与实务[M].长沙:湖南大学出版社,2005:102.
[32]田凯.公权介入仲裁须慎重[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(8).
[33]高菲,董纯钢.“枉法仲裁罪”刍议[J].中国仲裁,2005,(6).
[34]夏思扬.枉法仲裁该不该受刑法调整[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(6).
[35]田凯.公权介入仲裁须慎重[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(8).
[36]屈芥民.专家民事责任论[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,1998年:52页.
[37]程德钧,王生长.涉外仲裁与法律(第二辑)[M].北京:中国统计出版社,1994:126.
[38]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁新资料选编[M].武汉:武汉出版社,2001:215
[39]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁资料精选[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2004:142.
[40]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002:146.
[41]王利明.民法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:130.
[42] L&H Airco,Inc. v. Rapistan Corp.[1989] 446 N.W.2d 372,Minn.
[43]日本国仲裁法.日本安德森·毛利律师事务所译.梁华,杨帆监修.仲裁与法律第95辑,2005:133.
[44] (日)大土冢仁.刑法该说(各论).冯军译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:588-602.
[45]陈光中.刑事诉讼法.北京:北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社,2002:6.
[46]向琼芳.完善我国仲裁员的民事责任制度.2007年华东政法学院硕士学位论文:39.
[1]韩健.现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[2]张艳丽.中国商事仲裁制度有关问题及透析[M].北京:中国工人出版社,2000.
[3]谭兵.中国仲裁制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,1995.
[4]赵健.国际商事仲裁的司法监督[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[5]王利民.违约责任论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[6]宋朝武.中国仲裁制度:问题与对策[M].北京:经济日报出版社,2001.
[7]张艳丽.中国商事仲裁制度——有关问题及透析[M].北京:中国工人出版社,2000.
[8]谭兵.中国仲裁制度的改革与完善[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[9]袁忠民.中国仲裁制度[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1991.
[10]宋连斌.仲裁理论与实务[M].长沙:湖南大学出版社,2005.
[11]乔欣.仲裁权研究——仲裁程序公正与权利保障[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[12]宋连斌,林一飞.国际商事仲裁资料精选[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2004.
[13]黄进.国际私法与国际商事仲裁[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994.
[14]黄进,宋连斌,徐前权.仲裁法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[1]黄志勇.试论仲裁员的民事赔偿责任[J].求索.2004,(12).
[2]徐前权.论仲裁委员会的法律地位及其性质[J].荆州师专学报(社科版).1996,(3).
[3]黄志勇.仲裁员的民事赔偿在责任之比较[J].仲裁研究第二辑.
[4]夏思扬.枉法裁判不应规定为犯罪列入刑法[N].检察日报,2006-01-24.(8).
[5]田凯.公权介入仲裁须慎重[N].检察日报,2006-01-23.(7).
[6]勾永才.试论仲裁责任.中国第3届仲裁研讨会论文.
[7]徐前权.枉法仲裁罪之批判[J].广西民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版).2006,(3).
[8]马永才.仲裁员的责任要论[J].兰州商学院学报.2002,(3).
[9]孙珺.德国仲裁立法改革[J].外国法译评.1999,(1).
[10]萧凯.从富士施乐仲裁案看仲裁员的操守与责任[J].法学.2006,(10).
[11]张榕.论完善我国的仲裁制度[J].现代法学.1995,(5).
[12]张宗浩.“民事责任”的解读及重构[J].学术交流.2006,( 7).
[13]徐前权.仲裁员法律责任之检讨——兼评“枉法仲裁罪”[J].仲裁研究第九辑.
[14]陈桂明.诉讼公正与程序保障——民事诉讼程序优化的法哲学探讨[J].政法论坛.1995,(5).
[15]刘云兵.仲裁法的主要法理及对修正我国仲裁法的建议[J].上海铁道大学学报.2000,(7).
[16]石现名.仲裁员民事责任及其豁免之学理探析[J].民主与法制.2007,(2).
[17]尹灿.论仲裁员责任.华东政法学院2007年硕士学位论文.
[18]向琼芳.完善我国仲裁员的民事责任制度.华东政法学院2007年硕士学位论文.
[19]张远毅.我国律师民事责任制度研究.中国政法大学2006年硕士学位论文.
[1] Matthew Rasmussan .Overextending Immunity :Arbitral Institutional Liability in the United States. 26 Fordhan International Law Journal.2003(6).
[2] Andrew T. Guzman. Arbitrator Liability: Reconciling Arbitration and Mandatory Rules.[J]. Duke Law Journal. 2000(3).