중국은 국제상사중재제도의 변화에 대응하기 위하여, 상해국제경제무역중재위원회(SHIAC)가 중국(상해)자유무역시험지구 중재규칙을 2014년 5월 1일 시행하면서 중국 최초로 긴급중재인 제도를 규정하였다. 그리고 중국국제경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)도 2015년 1월 1일자로 개정한 중재규칙에서 긴급중재인 제도를 규정하였다. 그러나 중국은 민사소송법 및 중재법에서 법원만이 보전처분을 내릴 수 있도록 하고 있는 상황에서, SHIAC와 CIETAC이 긴급중재인의 임시적 처분 결정권을 인정한다는 것은 상당한 모순을 야기하고 있다.
본 논문은 SHIAC와 CIETAC의 중재규칙에 규정된 긴급중재인 제도와 관련한 주요 내용을 긴급중재인 제도를 운영하고 있는 대표적 중재기관들의 중재규칙과 상호 비교분석하였다. 또한 중국 법률에서 규정하고 있는 보전처분관련 규정과 SHIAC와 CIETAC의 관련 규정을 상호 비교하여 적용상의 특징 및 문제점 등을 파악하였다.
In order to cope with the changes of International Commercial Arbitration, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) regulated an Emergency Arbitrator for the first time, implementing the arbitration rules in China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone on May 1, 2014. Moreover, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) also regulated the Emergency Arbitrator in the revised arbitration rules on January 1, 2015. However, it caused considerable contradiction that SHIAC and CIETAC admitted an interim measure decision by the Emergency Arbitrator under the circumstance that the Chinese court can impose a preservative measure in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Arbiration Act. This study attempted to compare the main contents of an Emergency Arbitrator regulated in the arbitration rules of SHIAC and CIETAC with arbitration rules of representative arbitral institutions which operate an Emergency Arbitrator. In addition, this study verified the application features and problems through comparing the rule of SHIAC and CIETAC with the rule related to the preservative measure in Chinese law.
In order to cope with the changes of International Commercial Arbitration, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) regulated an Emergency Arbitrator for the first time, implementing the arbitration rules in China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone on May 1, 2014. Moreover, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) also regulated the Emergency Arbitrator in the revised arbitration rules on January 1, 2015. However, it caused considerable contradiction that SHIAC and CIETAC admitted an interim measure decision by the Emergency Arbitrator under the circumstance that the Chinese court can impose a preservative measure in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Arbiration Act. This study attempted to compare the main contents of an Emergency Arbitrator regulated in the arbitration rules of SHIAC and CIETAC with arbitration rules of representative arbitral institutions which operate an Emergency Arbitrator. In addition, this study verified the application features and problems through comparing the rule of SHIAC and CIETAC with the rule related to the preservative measure in Chinese law.
