| For the wrong arbitral award,China’s existing relief procedure is the arbitration judicial review system,which mainly includes the revoking of arbitral awards and the non-executive thereof.The two judicial interpretations of the 2018 re the arbitration judicial review have pushed the discussion on judicial review to a fever.Then,can the current judicial review system for arbitral awards give the parties comprehensive and adequate relief? What are the problems with the existing wrong ruling relief system? Is it possible to make up for the deficiencies of the judicial review mechanism by introducing an internal appealing mechanism? The optimization and reconstruction of the arbitral award relief system is the main research issue of this paper.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this paper is divided into the following four parts for writing.The first part: Point out the question.The reason why the internal appeal mechanism of arbitration is to be introduced is because the current wrong arbitration remedy system cannot accomplish the task of ruling relief well.Specifically,(1)Firstly,we identify the types of rulings in China: identify and discriminate the types of erroneous rulings that may appear in China’s existing arbitration law system.(2)Analyze the current status of China’s existing erroneous ruling relief system and its existing problems.The current remedy for wrong arbitral awards in China is mainly through the form of parties applying for judicial reciew.In summary,the main defects of the current relief system are:(a)the scope of relief is limited.At present,China has implemented a finite entity review method for domestic arbitral awards.The scope of remedies permitted by law and the parties can be far less than the scope of actual erroneous mistakes,and cannot meet the expectation of the parties to achieve substantive treatment of disputes.(b)The boundary of some procedural review matters is difficult to grasp,and it is difficult to satisfy the parties’ expectations of fair results by directly revoking the ruling.(c)The conservative nature of the application of the principle of public interest.The principle of public interest can be used as the bottom clause of judicial review of arbitration,supplementing the application reasons that are not specified.However,the judicial review system of our country is more conservative in applying the principle of public interest,and the application of the principle of public interest is more difficult.(d)The arbitration judicial review ruling lacks remedies,which may be the reason why the parties hesitate to arbitrate or even renounce arbitration.(3)The internal report system hinders the withdrawal of arbitral awards.This part reviews the internal reporting system in the judicial review of China’s arbitral awards.Although the internal reporting system is not one of the relief paths of wrong rulings,the operation of the system has made it difficult to revoke or refrain from executing rulings in practice,detracting from the efficiency,economy and convenience of arbitral awards.For its disadvantages,such as the lack of implementation rules,procedures are not open,delays in procedures,violations of the independence of the trial and so on.For this system,it is necessary to correctly understand its defects and the non-positive effect on the ruling of wrong rulings.It is intended to abolish the system and replace it with a reasonable alternative system.The second part,after clarifying the problem,analyzes the problems faced in introducing the internal rising mechanism of arbitration: whether the internal appeal mechanism will be a fundamental subversion of the arbitration and whether it will make the arbitration lose its relative to the litigation.The biggest advantage.Specifically,(1)the advantages of a final game are not absolute,but rather exist.When the amount of the arbitration object is huge and the arbitrator makes a judgment error,the decision of the final decision is not the advantage of arbitration and becomes a huge loss of interest to the party.Secondly,the finality of the arbitral award is relative to the fineness of the judicial review of the court.For the arbitral award of judicial review,its finality is strictly controlled by the judicial review system.(2)The limitations of a final decision,the final decision has not been able to adapt to the needs of practical development;our understanding of the finality is too monotonous and one-sided,and is inconsistent with international practice and legislative practice.(3)Finally,the internal appeal mechanism’s many details and supporting measures reflect the respect and maintenance of the concept of a final decision,it’s not repelling relationship between the two.In the third part,after analyzing the problems existing in the current judicial judicial prosecution system in China and the academic basis of the construction of the internal appeal mechanism of arbitration,the third part examines the latest legislative cases in the developed countries and regions,and considers the establishment of the above countries and regions.The reason and specific design of the internal appeal mechanism of arbitration is to prepare the internal appeal mechanism of arbitration for localization in China.The fourth part proposes optimization and reconstruction suggestions for the problems existing in the erroneous ruling relief system in China.(1)In view of the lack of relief channels for judicial review of arbitration,the appeal within the arbitration and the second relief for the judicial review ruling,which method is more reasonable and feasible.(2)If the internal appeal mechanism of arbitration is to be constructed,the basic principles should be discussed as a whole.(3)What aspects should be paid attention to for specific programming,and how to draw on existing legislative practices.Finally,in the remainder of the thesis,it is proposed to abolish the internal reporting system,reduce the resistance of wrongful ruling correction within the judicial prosecution system,and better respect the independence of arbitration,and achieve a better connection between the arbitral institution and the judicial prosecution.Cooperate with the ruling relief system to operate more energetically. |
