摘要
基于缺乏明确的意思表示与合同相对性等理由,当前司法实践态度倾向于否认主合同仲裁协议能够约束保证人。该观点忽视了主从合同在实体上的牵连性,违反了保证的实体法原理,削弱了仲裁制度的效率和保密性优势,也无法在裁判技术上达成统一。事实上,意思表示的认定突破书面形式走向实质,已成为国际商事仲裁发展的趋势,保证合同与主合同的紧密牵连亦要求其不能恪守合同相对性原则,将主从合同一并审理有助于实现仲裁目的与三方利益平衡,适应商事关系的现实需求。应当在坚持意思自治原则的基础上,承认主合同仲裁协议对保证人的约束效力。只有经解释无法明确当事人意思时,才能推定其接受了主合同的仲裁协议。
Based on the lack of clear expression of intent and contractual relativity and other reasons,the current judicial practice tends to deny that the principle contract arbitration agreement can bind the guarantor.This point of view ignores the substantive implication of the ancillary contracts and principal contracts,violates the substantive law principle of guarantee,weakens the efficiency and confidentiality of the arbitration system,and also fails to reach a unity in the adjudication technique.In fact,the determination of the expression of intent has broken through the written form and has become the trend of international commercial arbitration.The close connection between the guarantee contract and the principal contract also requires that the principle of contractual relativity should not be strictly adhered to.A joint trial is conducive to achieving the purpose of arbitration and balancing the interests of all three parties,and adapting to the practical needs of commercial relations.The binding effect of the arbitration agreement of the main contract on the guarantor should be recognized on the basic of adhering to the principle of party autonomy.Only if the intent of the parties cannot be clarified through interpretation,it can be presumed that they have accepted the arbitration agreement in the main contract.
出处
《商事仲裁与调解》
2024年第5期72-87,共16页
Commercial Arbitration & Mediation
基金
“司法部法治建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目”《国际商事调解协议的可执行性研究》(项目编号:22SFB4016)的研究成果
关键词
仲裁协议
保证合同
意思表示
主从合同
arbitration agreement
guarantee contract
expression of intent
principal contracts and ancillary contracts
