摘要
伴随我国经济的高速进程,仲裁的发展也有了量到质的飞跃,为人们解纷止争提供更便捷、高效的服务。诉讼和仲裁虽然作为解决纠纷的不同方式,但两者在最终目标上是一致的。目前,我国仍以司法权为主导,去"诉讼化"就成为仲裁这种非诉纠纷解决机制发展的一个重要方向,但是否需要真正"另立门户",正是该文探讨的核心所在。证据是案件审理的灵魂,当事人举证仍是仲裁庭审理案件的主要证据来源,但仲裁庭自行收集证据对现今仲裁证据制度来说已经有着举足轻重的地位,从仲裁庭自行收集证据制度的理论和法律基础出发,以诉讼和仲裁两大制度的规范和实践差异比较为视角,进行优势互补,实现与国际仲裁证据规则的有效衔接和互动,为重塑我国的仲裁庭自行收集证据制度提供更多合理化建议。
With the rapid progress of China’s economy,the development of arbitration has also made a leap from quantity to quality,providing more convenient and efficient services for people to resolve disputes.Although litigation and arbitration are different ways of resolving disputes,they share the same ultimate goal.At present,China is still dominated by judicial power,and the DE-litigation has become an important direction for the development of arbitration as a non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism.However,it is the core of this paper to discuss whether it is necessary to truly"establish another portal".Evidence is the soul of a case,and the parties’proof is still the main source of evidence for the arbitration tribunal to hear cases.However,the arbitration tribunal’s self-collection of evidence plays an important role in the current arbitration evidence system.Starting from the theoretical and legal basis of the arbitration tribunal’s self-collection of evidence system,and from the perspective of comparing the norms and practices of litigation and arbitration systems,this paper complements each other’s advantages,realizes the effective convergence and interaction with the international arbitration rules of evidence,and provides more reasonable suggestions for reshaping the arbitration tribunal’s self-collection of evidence system in China.
出处
《商事仲裁与调解》
2021年第2期132-141,共10页
Commercial Arbitration & Mediation
关键词
仲裁庭
自行收集
诉讼化
制度差异
证据规则
arbitration tribunal
self-collection
litigation
institutional differences
rules of evidence
作者简介
曾凤,重庆大学法学院硕士研究生。
