摘要
伴随法院诉讼案件“类案同判”机制的大力推进,仲裁是否也存在类案、仲裁应否以及能否“类案同裁”也成为了法律领域所关注的问题。仲裁存在“类案”,但由于仲裁在管理方式、程序推进、审理方式、裁判主体、案件数量等方面与诉讼均有不同,这使得仲裁“类案同裁”与诉讼体系相似语境下“类案同判”在类案定义和同裁范围上都有相似之处,但应具有更宽松的界定范围与限制标准,并应对程序事项具有更高程度的关注。仲裁可以推动“同裁”,通过比较我国推动诉讼“类案同判”的多种政策及方式,可以看出仲裁“类案同裁”的实现应从仲裁机构内部类案检索机制的建设入手,并结合仲裁裁决书的要件事实和裁判逻辑规范化进行。尽管仲裁在自上而下的管理和框架搭建上较为薄弱,但其自治性与竞争性可以自下而上促进“类案同裁”的实现。
The mechanism of“similar decisions in similar cases”is being strongly promoted in court proceedings.As a result,concerns have arisen as to whether there are similar cases in arbitration,and whether arbitrations should and can be“similarly adjudicated”.Arbitration is indeed“similar”.However,as arbitration differs from court litigation in terms of administration,procedural advancement,hearings,adjudicating body,number of cases,etc.,“similar cases with similar adjudication”in arbitration should have a more relaxed definition and standard compared with court litigation,but should be given a higher degree of attention to procedural handling.Arbitration also has the possibility of“same decision”.By looking at the various policies and methods used in China to promote“similar decisions in similar cases”in litigation,it can be seen that the realisation of“same award”in arbitration should start from the construction of a mechanism for searching for similar cases within the arbitration institution,and be combined with the standardisation of the facts and logic of the arbitral award.The standardisation of arbitral awards and the logic of adjudication.Although arbitration is slightly weaker than the judicial system in terms of top-down management,the autonomy and competitiveness of arbitration can promote the realisation of“similar decisions in similar cases”from the bottom-up.
出处
《商事仲裁与调解》
2024年第3期51-64,共14页
Commercial Arbitration & Mediation
关键词
类案同判
类案同裁
类案检索
要件事实裁判
仲裁自治论
similar cases
similar decision
research of similar cases
standardization of the facts
competitiveness of arbitration
