权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Comparative study of International Arbitration and similar institutions

国际仲裁与同类机构的比较研究

基本信息

批准号：
09837005
负责人：
MITSUI Tetsuo
金额：
$ 1.92万
依托单位：
Soka University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
1997
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
1997 至 1998
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-09837005/
关键词：
Award Expertise International Civil Procedure 国民民事訴訟法

项目摘要

It is the purpose of this study to analyze diverse institutions adjacent to the arbitration so as to delimit the role of arbitral tribunals in the decision-making process. Theoretically, the expertise, only for factual questions and based on exclusively technical knowledge, is clearly distinguished from the arbitration, but, pratically, the two domains are so often confused. In these days, moreover, the expertise so called "expert independant", definitely separate from the court or arbitration proceeding, is sometimes available in the international contract practice.The aim of our first study consists in comparing the various european systems, e.g., "expertise irrevocable" in France, "expertise amiable" in Belgium, "Scheidsgutachten" in Germany and Switzerland, "arbitrato irrituale o arbitraggio" in Italy, which resemble each other, but somewhat different. Thus, according to the judicial precedent in each continental States, we classify these many systems under six topics and find a key to the criterion which divides expertise from arbitration, that is to say, whatever characterization may be given a means of resolving disputes with final and binding force on the parties must be considered as arbitration.The second result of study teachs us that the mediaiton, conciliation and transaction, all these non-judicial mechanisms make their defects up mutually, so that we can equate them with "judgement by State court", providing res iudicata.In conclusion, it is to the "juridictionalisation" of arbitration which the private judicial law should attain in the coming Century.

本研究的目的是分析与仲裁相邻的各种机构，以界定仲裁庭在决策过程中的作用。从理论上讲，专门知识，仅用于事实问题，完全基于技术知识，与仲裁有明确的区别，但在实践中，这两个领域经常混淆。此外，在这些日子里，所谓的“专家独立”，明确独立于法院或仲裁程序，有时在国际合同实践中是可用的。我们的第一个研究的目的在于比较各种欧洲制度，例如，法国的“不可撤销的专门知识”、比利时的“友好的专门知识”、德国和瑞士的“Scheidsgutachten”、意大利的“不可撤销的仲裁或仲裁”，它们彼此相似，但又有所不同。因此，根据各大陆国家的司法判例，我们将这些众多的制度分为六个专题，并找到了区分专门知识与仲裁的标准的一把钥匙，也就是说，无论给予何种定性，一种对当事人具有最终约束力的解决争端的手段都必须被视为仲裁。研究的第二个结果告诉我们，调解、调解和交易，这些非司法机制的缺陷相互弥补，可以将其等同于“国家法院的判决”，提供既判力。总之，下世纪司法私法应实现的是仲裁的“司法化”。