23仲裁裁决的承认与执行

Domestic award vs. foreign award It is clear as jurisdictional matter that a State may only annul an award governed by its law, commonly referred to as a domestic award. The Working Group of the Model Law did not discuss the basis for distinguishing “domestic” and “foreign” awards until its seventh and last session. This discussion took place in the framework of the larger question of defining the scope of application of the Model Law as a whole. In response to the Working Group’s request expressed as its sixth session, the Secretariat prepared a report discussing and analyzing alternative positions. The choice is between an exclusive territorial criterion (an award made outside the territory of a State is a foreign award as far as that State is concerned) and a mixed territorial/party autonomy criterion (an award made outside the territory of a State is a foreign award as far as that State is concerned unless the parties have agreed to subject the arbitration to the law of that State, in which event the award is treated as a domestic award).
First, the Convention presumes the validity of awards and places the burden of proving invalidity on the party opposing enforcement. Second, awards need not be confirmed in the arbitral situs before enforcement can be sought abroad. Third, as Article III expressly provides, signatory states may not impose either conditions or procedural requirements that are more onerous than those applicable to domestic awards. Finally, Article V of the Convention sets forth a limited number of grounds for non-recognition of arbitral awards. Article V of the Convention is implemented by § 207 of the FAA. Section 207 provides that a court “ shall confirm” awards subject o the Convention “unless … one of the grounds for refusal” specified in the Convention is present. U.S. courts have usually regarded Article V’s exceptions as exclusive, and have emphasized the “general proenforcement bias informing the Convention.” The presumption of enforceability, established in Article III of the New York Convention, and described above, is subject to eight exceptions, set forth in Articles V and VI. In summary, they are:
Enforcement of International Arbitral awards under the New York Convention in U.S. The New York Convention was designed in large measure to facilitate the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Article III of the Convention imposes a general requirement that signatory states recognize arbitral awards made in other countries: Each contracting state shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the following articles. There shall not be imposed substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which the Convention applies than are imposed on the recognition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Several aspects of the Convention give special force to Article III’s requirement and underscore its drafters’ goal of facilitating transnational enforcement of arbitral awards.
被申请人提出两方面的异议：1、申请书的中文本没有经公 证和认证，而且超过了6个月的期限，申请无效。2、仲裁裁 决存在下列不予承认和执行的事项：（1）仲裁庭收取了被 申请人提起反诉的保证金，但未进行审理，剥夺了被申请人 的合法权利；（2）仲裁庭不经被申请人同意，随便更改仲 裁日程安排；（3）仲裁庭接受申请人于听证会后提交的证 据；（4）仲裁庭要求被申请人提交的中文材料附英文译本， 但没有要求申请人提交的德文材料附英文译本；（5）仲裁 庭认定事实的主要证据不成立；（6）仲裁庭在多处关键问 题上引用了与双方当事人无关的瑞士法律。法院还发现： （1）仲裁庭没有按照仲裁地的法律《瑞士联邦国际私法法 规》第186条的规定，就管辖权问题作出初步裁定；（2）裁 决裁定被申请人补偿申请人的律师费，超出了当事人交付仲 裁的范围。 请问：上海二中院是否应该承认与执行该仲裁裁决？为什么？
The question which criterion should be adopted for the application of the Model Law was not considered until late in the Working Group’s February 1984 session. After a hasty discussion, which could not do justice to the thoughtful Secretariat comments on the subject, the Working Group decided to adopt the territorial criterion, that is to say, “that the place of arbitration should be the exclusive determining factor for the applicability of the model law”. In view of the pressure of time, the Working Group decided not to review individual articles where this issue might be of particular relevance except for the article on setting aside, but failed to reach a clear conclusion on that article.
[案例23-1]麦考· 奈浦敦有限公司申请承认和执行仲裁裁决案 1995年2月18日，麦考国际海事系统有限公司与被申请人机械公司签订了 一份货物买卖合同。合同有仲裁条款：“由本合同产生或与本合同有关的 任何争议，如果当事人未能通过友好协商解决的，应当根据当事人均已声 明了解的联合国欧洲经济委员会仲裁规则，通过仲裁方式予以解决。仲裁 庭有三名独立仲裁员组成，其中两名由双方当事人指定，第三名仲裁员由 苏黎士商会指派。仲裁地为瑞士苏黎士。”1995年8月9日，被申请人交付 货物。货到德国后，麦考国际海事系统有限公司认为存在质量问题。在德 国检验后通知了被申请人。麦考国际海事系统有限公司就另外购买了货物。 1996年12月16日，麦考国际海事系统有限公司以所交货物与约定不符致其 损害为由提起仲裁。1997年8月，麦考国际海事系统有限公司并入麦考公 司，申请人成为麦考国际海事系统有限公司债权债务的继受者。1998年7 月31日，仲裁庭作出裁决，1998年8月5日，该裁决书送达被申请人。 1999年1月29日，申请人代理律师向上海二中院提出申请，提交的材料有： 1、承认和执行仲裁裁决申请书；2、申请人企业登记材料；3、仲裁协议； 4、法定代表人身份证明和授权委托书（上述材料中英文各一份复印件）； 5、仲裁裁决书英文本（经公证和认证）和中文本（未经公证和认证）。 1999年2月1日，申请人补充了上述1—4项材料的公证认证材料和股东名录。 1999年2月4日二中院立案审查合议庭报庭领导同意后立案。