臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在跨國商業活動發展蓬勃之今日，國際商務仲裁已成為跨國商務紛爭最常見之紛爭解決方式，當事人間須訂有仲裁協議始得將紛爭提付仲裁，原則上僅有仲裁協議之當事人始受仲裁協議拘束。然而，如今商業活動之發展日益龐雜，其中不乏許多複雜交易型態，其牽扯之利害關係人眾多，當紛爭發生時，涉及紛爭之人可能包含多方利害關係人，惟其中並非所有人之間皆有簽訂仲裁協議，此時若有涉及當事人以外之第三人與契約紛爭密切相關之請求，若仍持傳統觀點，認為只有在仲裁協議上簽字之當事人始受仲裁協議拘束，則在所有利害關係人間涉及之同一或相牽連背景事實之紛爭勢必不能在同一仲裁程序中解決，其他未簽字之利害關係人若在其他內國法院或仲裁庭提起訴訟或仲裁，更有不同裁判或仲裁判斷可能發生歧異之問題。
就此問題，國際商務仲裁實務大多認為判斷仲裁合意並不以在仲裁協議上簽字為必要，若能以其他方式證明第三人與當事人間有仲裁合意，則第三人亦應受仲裁協議拘束。實務上已發展出若干理論基礎，在特定情形下認為仲裁庭可將管轄權及於第三人。各種理論基礎可大分為兩類，第一類係依各國內國法之傳統契約法規定，在第三人符合契約法預設之法律關係（如債權讓與、第三人利益契約等）時，依契約法規定解釋仲裁協議對第三人之效力；第二類係在傳統契約法之外發展出之各種如仲裁禁反言原則及公司集團原則等非簽字方理論（non-signatories），以特定事實型態推知仲裁合意。
然而，經本文研究發現，國際仲裁實務上仲裁庭為解決紛爭之需求有逐漸忽略仲裁合意之趨勢，此係因長久以來仲裁制度奠基之仲裁合意基礎已不足以處理所有今日涉及多方關係人之複雜商業紛爭，在某程度上為不得不然之結果。
本文認為現行國際仲裁實務適用非簽字方理論處理之各種案例中，大多數案例原則上仍應回歸適用傳統契約法之理論。在未能以傳統契約法處理，但卻有紛爭一同解決之需求時，有學者認為此時應例外顛覆仲裁程序之仲裁合意基礎，在第三人之相關請求屬契約中之紛爭不可分割之整體時，應斟酌各項因素，考慮將第三人納入仲裁程序。此見解直接挑戰傳統上仲裁合意為仲裁制度之基礎之見解，雖未必為各國法院接受，其直指問題核心，回到仲裁協議之紛爭解決功能，不失為未來國際商務仲裁實務可參考之方向。
就我國實務對第三人議題之見解，其尚無逸脫仲裁合意之基礎，主要仍以傳統契約法為依據，惟其在適用國內民法解釋仲裁協議之效力是否及於第三人時，應注意仲裁協議之性質有別於其他契約中約定之實體法權利義務，在仲裁合意之解釋上，其思維應與主契約之權利義務內容有所不同，不宜直接套用規範實體權利義務之民法條文，將仲裁合意之判斷併入實體權利義務之抗辯權中，完全與主契約之效力一概而論。

Nowadays international commercial arbitration is the most widely used mechanism in addressing international commercial disputes. The cornerstone of arbitration rests on consent. In principle, only the “parties” who sign the arbitration agreement are bound to arbitrate. However, the development of international trade has made modern international commercial transactions become more and more complex, often involving several multinational parties or groups. Most of the time not all of them have signed the arbitration agreement. If disputes concerning other non-signatories (third parties) arise, in theory only the parties to the arbitration agreement can participate in the arbitration proceedings. This leaves other parties in interest outside the scope of arbitration, posing a risk of contradictory judgments if they seek to initiate court or arbitral proceedings in other places.
To address this issue, the prevailing view in practice is that consent to arbitrate need not be evidenced in writing. As long as the consent of non-signatories and signatories can be proved, non-signatories can be bound by or enjoy the benefit of the arbitration agreement. Several legal bases has been developed to address the non-signatory issues. They are mainly based on traditional contract law theories and other non-signatory theories which infer consent from specific fact patterns.
As this thesis shows, due to the need to resolve complex disputes, the fact patterns employed by arbitral tribunals in non-signatory theories in fact compromise the requirement of consent in arbitration. This phenomenon to some extent reveals that the sophistication of modern international trade has outgrown the traditional consensual nature of arbitration.
The author maintains that in most cases where non-signatory theories are applied, the consensual nature of arbitration should still be respected, since most of the cases can be addressed by traditional contract law theories. If there is still cases traditional contract law theories fail to cover, some scholar suggest if the third party claim raised is an integral part of the main dispute underlying the contract containing an arbitration clause, the third party may be joined into the arbitration under certain circumstances. This opinion presents a fundamental challenge to the universally recognized consensual nature of arbitration. It may not be accepted by most jurisdictions for now, but it provides an insightful resolution to the third party issue. It remains to be seen whether this opinion will be accepted in the future.
As for Taiwanese arbitration practice, most court judgements published show that the court still respect the consensual nature of arbitration. The arbitral tribunals and courts tend to apply traditional contract law theories to extend their jurisdiction to non-signatories (third parties). However, the author suggests that the tribunals and courts should distinguish arbitration clauses from other clauses in the main contract when applying the default rules in the civil law to interpret the arbitration clause. In certain circumstances, arbitration clauses are similar to personal covenants that cannot be interpreted to bind/ transfer to third parties.

目錄

第一章　　緒論 1
第一節　研究動機與目的 1
第二節　研究範圍 5
第三節　研究問題與方法 8
第四節　研究架構 13
第二章　　仲裁協議拘束第三人之法律基礎 15
第一節 傳統契約法規定 15
第一項　權利義務之移轉 15
第二項　代理（Agency） 26
第三項　利益第三人（Third Party Beneficiary） 30
第四項　引置條款（Incorporation by Reference） 32
第五項　保證 38
第二節 非簽字方理論（Non-signatory Theories） 41
第一項　默示同意 42
第二項　仲裁禁反言（arbitral estoppel） 45
第三項　公司集團原則（Group of Companies Doctrine） 51
第四項　揭穿公司面紗原則 67
第三章　　非簽字方主動或被動參與仲裁程序之實務運作 71
第一節　權利義務移轉與第三人利益契約 73
第二節　代理關係 74
第三節　引置條款 77
第四節　公司集團原則 77
第五節　仲裁禁反言 78
第六節　小結 79
第四章　　綜合分析 82
第一節　仲裁制度之合意基礎式微 82
第一項　決定是否在仲裁程序納入第三人參考之因素 83
第二項　依仲裁合意基礎判斷仲裁程序是否應納入第三人之合理標準 85
第二節　可能之解決方法 87
第一項　契約相關機制 88
第二項　顛覆仲裁合意之基礎 89
第三節　仲裁協議獨立性在第三人議題中之關聯 92
第四節　準據法適用之趨勢 93
第五節　其他考慮因素 94
第一項　保密性（confidentiality） 94
第二項　仲裁協議之書面要件 94
第三項　管轄權範圍不等同實體責任之範圍 95
第五章　　台灣相關實務見解 97
第一節　權利義務之移轉 98
第一項　債權讓與／契約承擔 98
第二項　代位 101
第二節　利益第三人 102
第三節　引置條款 103
第四節　保證 106
第五節　默示同意 109
第六節　揭穿公司面紗原則 111
第七節　小結 112
第六章　　結論與建議 115

參考文獻 118

一、中文參考文獻
（一）專書
王文宇，公司法論，元照出版，2016年7月。
王澤鑑，民法總則，作者自版，2010年4月。
陳自強，契約之成立與生效，元照出版，2014年2月。
劉連煜，現代公司法，新學林出版，2014年9月。
（二）期刊論文
王文宇，公司經理人之代理權限與表見代理，台灣法學雜誌第50期，2003年9月，頁157-166。
吳光明，論工程仲裁協議對第三人之效力—兼論最高法院98年台上字第543號判決，仲裁季刊第91期，2010年9月，頁68-94。
林誠二，債權讓與中隨同移轉之從屬權利範圍－簡評最高法院九七年台上第七九三號判決－，台灣法學雜誌第115期，2008年11月，頁156-159。
陳俊元，再論我國保險人請求權代位之性質，政大法學評論第90期，2006年4月，頁229-300。
（三）學位論文
劉亦明，載貨證券引置條款之研究─以比較法觀點論現行條款之檢討與展望，國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文，2015年12月。
（四）案例
臺中地方法院95年度仲認字第1號裁定。
臺北地方法院105年度仲訴字第8號判決。
臺北地方法院105年度仲聲字第3號裁定。
臺灣高等法院85年度抗字第3148號裁定。
臺灣高等法院86年度重上字第224號判決。
臺灣高等法院92年度保險上更(二)字第7號判決。
臺灣高等法院臺南分院94年度抗字第223號裁定。
臺灣高等法院97年度重上更(二)字第82號判決。
臺灣高等法院103年度上字第711號判決。
臺灣高等法院高雄分院105年度重抗字第40號民事裁定。
臺灣高等法院105年度抗字第1345號裁定。
最高法院64年度台抗字239號裁定。
最高法院87年度台抗字第630號裁定。
最高法院94年度台抗字第993號裁定。
最高法院97年度台上字第793號判決。
最高法院104年度台上字第1853號判決。
最高法院106年台抗字第321號裁定。
最高法院106年台抗字第321號裁定。
（五）法律、法規或命令
民事訴訟法。
民法。
仲裁法。
商務仲裁條例（已廢止）。
（六）決議或座談會意見
臺灣高等法院暨所屬法院座談會（民國 87年11月01日）。
最高法院106年度第8次民事庭會議（民國106年05月16日）。
二、英文參考文獻
（一）專書
BLACKABY, NIGEL ET AL. (2015), REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, 6th ed.
BORN, GARY (2001), INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS, 2d ed.
BORN, GARY (2014), INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, 2d ed.
BREKOULAKIS, STAVROS (2010), THIRD PARTIES IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION.
GAILLARD, EMMANUEL & JOHN SAVAGE (eds.) (1999), FOUCHARD GAILLARD GOLDMAN ON INTERNAITONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION.
HANOTIAU, BERNARD (2006), COMPLEX ARBITRATIONS: MULTIPARTY, MULTICONTRACT, MULTI-ISSUE AND CLASS ACTIONS.
SAHANI, VICTORIA SHANNON & LISA BENCH NIEUWVELD (2012), THIRD-PARTY FUNDING IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
SWEET, ALEC STONE & FLORIAN GRISEL (2017), THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: JUDICIALIZATION, GOVERNANCE, LEGITIMACY.
WAINCYMER, JEFFREY (2012), PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
（二）期刊論文
Abdel-Wahab, Mohamed (2010), The extension of Arbitration Agreements to Thirty Parties: A Never Ending Legal Quest through the Spatial-Temporal Continuum, in CONFLICT OF LAWS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 137 (Franco Ferrari & Stefan Kröll eds.).
Abou-Youssef, Karim (2010), The Limits of Consent: The Right or Obligation to Arbitrate of Non-Signatories in Groups of Companies, in MULTI-PARTY ARBITRATION 71 (Bernard Hanotiau &Eric A. Schwartz eds.).
Besson, Sébastien (2010), Piercing the Corporate Veil: Back on the Right Track, in MULTI-PARTY ARBITRATION 147 (Bernard Hanotiau &Eric A. Schwartz eds.).
Derains, Yves (2010), Is There a Group of Companies Doctrine?, in MULTI-PARTY ARBITRATION 131 (Bernard Hanotiau &Eric A. Schwartz eds.).
Driskill, Christopher (2009), A Dangerous Doctrine: The Case Against Using -Misconduct Estoppel to Compel Arbitration, 60(2) ALABAMA LAW REVIEW 443.
Duve, Christian & Philip Wimalasena (2015), Part IV: Selected Areas and Issues of Arbitration in Germany, Arbitration of Corporate Law Disputes in Germany, in ARBITRATION IN GERMANY: THE MODEL LAW IN PRACTICE 927 (2d ed., Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel et al. eds.).
Frankel, Richard (2014), The Arbitration Clause as Super Contract, 91 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 531.
Girsberger, Daniel & Christian Hausmaninger (1992), Assignment of Rights and Agreement to Arbitrate, 8(2) ARBITRATION INTERNATIONAL 121.
Girsberger, Daniel (2010), The law applicable to the assignment of claims subject to an arbitration agreement, in CONFLICT OF LAWS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 379 (Franco Ferrari & Stefan Kröll eds.).
Hanotiau, Bernard (2015), Non-signatories, Groups of Companies and Groups of Contracts in Selected Asian Countries: A Case Law Analysis, 32(6) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 571.
Hosking, James M. (2004), The Third Party Non-Signatory''s Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration: Doing Justice without Destroying Consent, 4(3) PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 469.
Jagusch, Stephen & Anthony C. Sinclair (2006), Chapter 15: The Impact of Third Parties on International Arbitration – Issues of Assignment, in PERVASIVE PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 291 (Julian D. M. Lew and Loukas A. Mistelis eds.).
Meyniel, Alexandre (2013), That Which Must Not Be Named: Rationalizing the Denial of US Courts With Respect to the Group of Companies Doctrine, 3(1) ARBITRATION BRIEF 18.
Park, William W. (2015), Challenging Arbitral Jurisdiction: The Role of Institutional Rules, in FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF LAURIE CRAIG, Boston University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 15-40, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2675294 .
Park, William W. (2009), Non-signatories and International Contracts: An Arbitrator’s Dilemma, in MULTIPLE PARTY ACTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (Permanent Court of Arbitration ed.).
Platte, Martin (2008), Multi-party Arbitration: Legal Issues Arising out of Joinder and Consolidation, in ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS: THE NEW YORK CONVENTION IN PRACTICE 481 (Emmanuel Gaillard & Domenico Di Pietro eds.).
Rau, Alan Scott (2008), Arbitral Jurisdiction and the Dimensions of ‘Consent’, 24(2) ARBITRATION INTERNATIONAL 199.
Voser, Nathalie (2009), Multi-party Disputes and Joinder of Third Parties, in 50 YEARS OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION: ICCA INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE 343 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed.).
（三）案例
1.法院判決
(1)英國
Cottage Club Estates Ltd v Woodside Estates Co. [1928] 2 KB 463 (English High Ct.).
Federal Bulk Carriers Inc v C. Itoh & Co. Ltd. and Others [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103.
Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri v Sometal Sal [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm)
Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm).
Peterson Farm Inc v C&M Farming Ltd [2004] APP.L.R. 02/04.
Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlef Von Appen GmbH v Wiener Allianz Versichrungs AG & Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH [1997] APP.L.R. 04/16.
Shayler v. Woolf [1946] Ch 320.
Stellar Shipping Co Llc v Hudson Shipping Lines [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm)
Thomas v Portsea [1912] AC 1 (HL).
Trygg Hansa Insurance Co Ltd v Equitas [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 439.
West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa [2005] APP.L.R. 03/21.
(2)美國
American Bureau of Shipping v Tencara Shipyard, 170 F 3d 349 (2d Cir. 1999)
Astra Oil v Rover Navigation, 344 F 3d 276 (2d Cir. 2003).
Cedrela Transport Ltd v Banque Cantonale Vaudoise, 67 F Supp 353 (SDNY 1999).
Century Indemnity Co. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd''s, 584 F 3d 513 (3d Cir. 2009).
Deloitte Noraudit A/S v Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 9 F.3d 1060 (2d Cir. 1993).
DK Joint Venture 1 v Weyand, 649 F 3d 310 (5th Cir. 2011).
Hoefs v CACV of Colo., LLC, 365 F Supp 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2005).
In re Vesta Ins. Group., Inc., 192 S W 3d 759 (Tex. 2006).
InterGen NV v Grina, 344 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2003).
ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins Co v Amerishare Inv, Inc, 133 F 3d 664 (8th Cir. 1998).
JLM Industries v Stolt-Nielsen, 387 F 3d 163 (2d Cir. 2004).
Jones v Jacobson, 195 Cal App 4th 1 (Cal App 4th Dist., 2011).
Kvaerner v The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, 210 F 3d 262 (4th Cir. 2000).
Lachmar v Trunkline LNG, 753 F 2d 8 (2d Cir. 1985).
McBro Planning Development v Triangle Electrical Construction, 741 F 2d 342 (11th Cir. 1984).
MS Dealer Service Corp., v Franklin, 177 F 3d 942 (11th Cir. 1999).
Pritzker v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F 3d 1110 (3d Cir. 1993).
Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. v C.A. Reaseguradora Nacional de Venezuela, 991 F 2d 42 (2d Cir. 1993).
Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F 3d 753 (11th Cir. 1993).
Thomson-CSF, S.A. v American Arbitration Ass''n, 64 F 3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995).
(3)法國
Paris Cour d’Appel, 30 November 1988, Korsnas Marma v. Durand-Auzias.
Paris Cour d’Appel, 13 November 1992.
Cour de Cassation, 22 November 1977.
(4)德國
23 BGHZ 198, judgment of 30 January 1957.
BGH, III ZR 371/12, judgment 8 May 2014, Danish assignee v Indian legal successor of licensee.
(5)瑞士
Swiss Federal Tribunal, Judgment of 8 March 2012, DFT 4A_627/2011.
Swiss Federal Tribunal, Judgment of 7 February 1984, Tradax Export v Amoco Iran Oil Amoco Company.
Swiss Federal Tribunal, Judgment of 21 August 2008, DFT 4A_194/2008.
Swiss Federal Tribunal, Judgment of 25 June 2014, DFT 4A_450/2013.
(6)瑞典
Svea Court of Appeal, Judgment of 16 May 2002, Case No. T4496-01.
(7)俄羅斯
Moscow District Court, Judgment of 21 April 1997, IMP Group (Cyprus) Ltd v Aeroimp (Russian Fed).
2.仲裁判斷
(1)法國
ICC Case No. 1434 of 1975.
ICC Case No. 4131 of 1982.
ICC Case No. 5103 of 1988.
ICC Case No. 5832 of 1988.
ICC Case No. 7610 of 1988.
ICC Case No. 7604 of 1988.
ICC Case No. 5894 of 1989.
ICC Case No. 7155 of 1993.
ICC Case No. 7626 of 1995.
ICC Case No. 8910 of 1998.
ICC Case No. 11160 of 2002.
(2)瑞士
Ad Hoc Final Award of 24 August 2011, E. Holding v Z Ltd., Mr. G. and others, 29(4) ASA Bulletin 884.
（四）法律、法規或其他法律文件
1.國際公約或其他文件
EC First Directive on Company Law (68/151/EEC)
Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Agency 1978
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958 (the “New York Convention”)
Principles of European Contract Law 1999
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 2006
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2010
2.各國法律
(1)英國
Arbitration Act 1996
Companies Act 2006
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
(2)美國
Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1981
(3)新加坡
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2002
(4)挪威
The Arbitration Act 2004
3.機構規則
CIETAC Rules 2015
ICC Arbitration Rules 2017
SCC Arbitration Rules 2017
SIAC Rules 2016
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013
Vienna Rules 2013
（五）網路資料
Schwedt, Kirstin and Julia Grothaus, When Does an Arbitration Agreement Have a Binding Effect on Non¬Signatories? The Group of Companies Doctrine vs. Conflict of Laws Rules and Public Policy, KLUWER ARBITRATION BLOG (July 30 2014), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2014/07/30/when-does-an-arbitration-agreement-have-a-binding-effect-on-non-signatories-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-vs-conflict-of-laws-rules-and-public-policy/ .
Segesser, Georg von, Swiss Supreme Court Extends Arbitration Agreement to a Third Party: Potential Risk for Corporate Groups, KLUWER ARBITRATION BLOG (3 June 2015), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/06/03/swiss-supreme-court-extends-arbitration-agreement-to-a-third-party-potential-risk-for-corporate-groups/ .
Voser, Nathalie & Benjamin Moss, Supreme Court sets aside arbitral award on jurisdictional grounds, SCHELLENBERG WITTMER’S PUBLICATION (25 June 2014), http://www.swlegal.ch/Publications/Arbitration-Case-Digest/Swiss-Supreme-Court-sets-aside-arbitral-award-on-j.aspx .