| 姓名 | 王怡文(Yi-wen Wang) | 電子郵件信箱 | E-mail 資料不公開 | |
| 畢業系所 | 營建工程系碩士班(Department and Graduate Institute of Constrction Engineering) | |||
| 畢業學位 | 碩士(Master) | 畢業時期 | 95學年第2學期 | |
| 論文名稱(中) | 論營建工程之仲裁人選任制度與衡平仲裁 | |||
| 論文名稱(英) | A Study of Appointment System of Arbitrator and Amiable Composition in Construction Engineering | |||
| 檔案 |
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。 |
論文使用權限 | 校內外都二年後公開 | |
| 論文語文/頁數 | 中文/160 | |||
| 摘要(中) |
仲裁的精神，是基於雙方當事人，能有自主原則表達己方之意見，而達到解決紛爭的結果。因此仲裁人的選任制度，是一個須經雙方認可，且公平、合理、公正的透明化制度。唯有確立完整的仲裁人選任制度，才能於仲裁法的實際推動上，較無爭議，並達到當事人雙方均認同合法、合理的結果。 由現今仲裁法規定，仲裁人是由當事人雙方各選任一位仲裁人，於實務上，仲裁人易產生當事人之代理人的心態。於仲裁庭時，較易發生僅為選任之當事人辯護，甚而偏袒於當事人一方，而造成仲裁人所作之判斷結果，較難使雙方信服。因此，仲裁人代理人化之問題，實為仲裁人選任制度的重要課題。再者，工程仲裁實務中，因營建工程牽涉範圍甚廣，且具高度專業技術性，仲裁人本身若欠缺工程相關之專業能力，對於工程慣例或專業鑑定報告，恐因不熟悉而影響判定也難以服眾。故本文就營建工程觀點研究探討仲裁人選任制度，期能提供研究成果，以利解決工程爭議及提升國內工程仲裁之信任。 而仲裁法第三十一條：「仲裁人經當事人明示合意，得適用衡平原則為判斷。」當爭議發生之時，仲裁人必須先發現，若以法律之嚴格規定，將會與實際情形產生不公平的結果，而告知當事人。經當事人合意授權，而改採衡平仲裁作為判斷依據。但仲裁人是否真能摒棄民法之『誠信原則』或『法理原則』，而做出公平合理之判斷，尚有疑慮；且一般仲裁人，亦未必真能理解衡平仲裁之真正意涵，因此對於非法律背景之仲裁人而言，若對於法律規定及其適用不甚清楚，亦無法做出公正合理之判斷結果。本研究認為，衡平仲裁並非否定以依據法律之下所作成之合理判斷，因法律是有相對性，而只是針對營建工程仲裁的特性，避免因法條之主觀明確規定，而模糊了工程爭議發生當時之客觀因素，讓仲裁人能以合情合理之導向，做出公正公平之判決。 立法院於中華民國96年6月8日通過採購法第八十五條之ㄧ修正案「廠商提付仲裁，機關不得拒絕。」該項修法廠商雖得以交付「強制仲裁」，但本研究認為若不對仲裁人選任制度加以改善，仍然無法有效提高仲裁制度之公正性，亦無法使得當事人雙方肯定仲裁制度並服從判決。為達成健全工程仲裁人選任制度以提昇仲裁品質之目標，本研究成果提出，建議工程仲裁之主任仲裁人的資格，應同時具有法律背景與工程專業背景者來擔任審理仲裁爭議；及建立仲裁人評鑑與淘汰制度，以避免少數不公正之仲裁判斷造成當事人對於仲裁制度之疑慮。並建議建立完整仲裁人名冊（包括仲裁人經歷及專業背景等），並採系統分類隨機選取方式，選任適合該仲裁案之仲裁人，以避免仲裁人代理人化之情形發生。 |
|||
| 摘要(英) | The
essence of arbitration is that both parties concerned can have
the principle of autonomy to express their own opinions in order
to solve their disputes. Therefore, the appointment system must
be a fair, reasonable, impartial and transparent system that
shall be approved and accepted by both parties. Only if a
complete arbitrator appointment system is established, there
will be less controversial issues in the actual promotion of the
Arbitration Law and both parties concerned will get a legal and
reasonable result which they both agree with. According to the existing Arbitration Law, both parties concerned shall appoint an arbitrator respectively. In the practical cases, it is easy for the arbitrator to be in a state of regarding himself/herself as an attorney of the appointer. Thus, in a court of arbitration, it is easier for the arbitrator to defend his/her appointer and even to take sides with such party concerned, making the determination of the arbitrator hard to convince both parties. Consequently, the problem about the arbitrator in the character of an attorney is a key issue for the arbitrator appointment system. Furthermore, for the practical case of engineering arbitration, the arbitrators will be unfamiliar with the engineering practices or the professional authentication report so as to influence their determinations, which are also hard to convince people, if they are deficient in professional engineering-related abilities. Therefore, with a study on the arbitrator appointment system from the viewpoint of construction engineering, this article expects to provide the research result to solve engineering-related disputes and to promote the reliability of domestic engineering arbitration. According to the Article 31 of Arbitration Law, “If expressly authorized by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may apply the rules of equity to determine the arbitral award”, the arbitrator must find there would be unfair result in the actual situation if based on the strict laws and regulations and then tell the parties concerned about it when both parties have disputes. With the consensual authorization of both parties concerned, the arbitrator can change to adopt the amiable composition as his/her determination basis. However, there are still doubts if the arbitrator could really abandon “the Principle of Good Faith” or “the Legal Principle” to make a fair and reasonable determination.And for general arbitrators, most of them cannot necessarily understand the real meaning of amiable composition. Therefore, for those arbitrators without the legal backgrounds, they cannot make a fair and reasonable determination if they are not very clear about the law and its application. This research thinks that the amiable composition is not to deny the reasonable determination made by laws because of legal relativity but is just to be aimed at the characteristics of construction engineering arbitration and to avoid from blurring objective factors existed in the engineering disputes because of subjective and definite regulations to make the arbitrator be able to make a fair and impartial determination based on a fair and reasonable orientation. The Legislative Yuan has approved the amendatory act of Article 85-1 of Procurement Law on June 8, 2007 as below: “When an enterprise submits a dispute to arbitration, the agency shall not refuse it”. According to such amendatory act, although the enterprise can submit a dispute to “Compulsory Arbitration”, this research thinks that it is still unable to effectively promote the justice of arbitration system and also cannot make both parties concerned approve the arbitration system and obey the determination if the arbitrator appointment system couldn’t be improved. In order to achieve the target of integrating the appointment system of engineering arbitrators and promoting the quality of arbitration, this research result suggests that for the qualification of a chief engineering arbitrator, this research claims to appoint a person with legal backgrounds and engineering specialties to serve an arbitrator to judge and arbitrate a dispute. This research also suggests that it is necessary establish an arbitrator evaluation and elimination system to avoid from any doubts of the parties concerned about the arbitration system because of a few unfair arbitration determinations. In addition, this research suggests to establish a complete name list of and professional backgrounds arbitrators and to adopt a method of random selection by system classification to appoint an arbitrator who is suitable for such arbitration case to avoid from the occurrence of an arbitrator as an attorney. |
|||
| 關鍵字(中) |
|
關鍵字(英) |
|
|
| 口試委員 |
|
|||
| 口試日期 | 2007-07-28 | 繳交日期 | 2007-08-19 | |