染雾优秀的仲裁协议书优秀 篇一
仲裁是解决争议的一种有效方式，而仲裁协议书作为仲裁程序的基础，其优秀程度直接影响着仲裁结果的公正性和合法性。那么，什么样的仲裁协议书才能称得上优秀呢？
首先，优秀的仲裁协议书应当明确双方的权利和义务。仲裁协议书应当清晰地规定争议的范围、仲裁的程序和要求以及仲裁结果的执行等内容，确保双方都能够清楚地了解自己的权益和义务。只有当双方对仲裁程序的要求和结果有了明确的认识，才能够在仲裁过程中保持公平公正的原则。
其次，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备可操作性。仲裁协议书应当具备可执行性，即在争议发生后，双方能够依据协议书的规定进行仲裁程序，并对仲裁结果进行执行。协议书中的条款应当具备可操作性，不应过于模糊或含糊，以免给仲裁过程带来不必要的纠纷。
第三，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备灵活性。仲裁协议书应当给予双方一定的自主权，使双方能够根据实际情况进行调整。例如，在仲裁程序中，双方可以协商一致地选择仲裁员、选择仲裁地点等，以满足各方的实际需求。灵活的仲裁协议书能够更好地适应各种特殊情况和复杂争议的解决。
最后，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备保密性。在仲裁过程中，往往涉及到各方的商业秘密和敏感信息，因此，仲裁协议书应当明确规定保密义务，确保仲裁过程的机密性。同时，仲裁协议书还应当明确规定仲裁结果的保密义务，以防止仲裁结果被泄露或滥用。
综上所述，优秀的仲裁协议书应当明确双方的权利和义务，具备可操作性、灵活性和保密性。只有在这些方面做到优秀，才能够确保仲裁结果的公正性和合法性，为各方提供一种高效、公正和可信赖的争议解决方式。
优秀的仲裁协议书优秀 篇二
仲裁作为一种非诉讼的争议解决方式，其结果的公正性和合法性直接取决于仲裁协议书的质量。那么，什么样的仲裁协议书才能称得上优秀呢？
首先，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备明确的条款和规定。仲裁协议书应当明确规定争议的范围、仲裁的程序和要求以及仲裁结果的执行等内容，确保双方在仲裁过程中能够清晰地了解自己的权益和义务。只有当双方对仲裁程序的要求和结果有了明确的认识，才能够保证仲裁结果的公正性和合法性。
其次，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备可操作性。仲裁协议书应当具备可执行性，即在争议发生后，双方能够依据协议书的规定进行仲裁程序，并对仲裁结果进行执行。协议书中的条款应当具备可操作性，不应过于模糊或含糊，以免给仲裁过程带来不必要的纠纷。
第三，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备灵活性。仲裁协议书应当给予双方一定的自主权，使双方能够根据实际情况进行调整。例如，在仲裁程序中，双方可以协商一致地选择仲裁员、选择仲裁地点等，以满足各方的实际需求。灵活的仲裁协议书能够更好地适应各种特殊情况和复杂争议的解决。
最后，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备保密性。在仲裁过程中，往往涉及到各方的商业秘密和敏感信息，因此，仲裁协议书应当明确规定保密义务，确保仲裁过程的机密性。同时，仲裁协议书还应当明确规定仲裁结果的保密义务，以防止仲裁结果被泄露或滥用。
综上所述，优秀的仲裁协议书应当具备明确的条款和规定，具备可操作性、灵活性和保密性。只有在这些方面做到优秀，才能够确保仲裁结果的公正性和合法性，为各方提供一种高效、公正和可信赖的争议解决方式。
优秀的仲裁协议书优秀 篇三
精选优秀的仲裁协议书优秀例文
导语：仲裁协议书是就双方的纠纷达到了一致，能够私下解决不需要通过法律解决的一种合法手段。欢迎阅读，仅供参考，更多相关的知识，请关注的栏目!
仲裁协议书：
甲方：______(姓名或者名称、住址)
乙方：______(姓名或者名称、住址)
甲乙双方就______(写明仲裁的事由)达成仲裁协议如下：
如果双方在履行____合同过程中发生纠纷，双方自愿将此纠纷提交______仲裁委员会仲裁，其仲裁裁决对双方有约束力。
本协议一式三份，甲乙双方各执一份，______仲裁委员会一份。
本协议自双方签字之日起生效。
甲方：______(签字、盖章)
乙方：______(签字、盖章)
____年____月____日
仲裁协议书：
(1) 申诉方/反诉被诉方：卖方
(2) 被诉方/反诉申诉方：买方
Parties：
(1) Claimant/counter-defendant： Seller
(2) Defendant/Counter-claimant： Buyer
仲裁地：
Place of arbitration：
事实
FACTS
1994年，双方当事人根据某种协议规格规定签署了3份买卖一种产品的合同。在收到货运单据后，买方即按合同规定，支付了全部合同价的90%.
In 1994， the parties concluded three contracts for the sale of a product according to certain contract specifications. The buyer paid 90% of the price payable under each of the contracts upon presentation of the shipping documents， as contractually agreed.
按第一和第三份合同提供的产品符合协议规格，第二批货物的规格在装运前就有过争议。产品抵达目的地后重新检验，发现其不符合协议规格。为便于脱手，经过某种处理，最终买方将产品卖给了第三方，损失惨重。
The product delivered pursuant to the first and third contracts met the contract specifications. The conformity of the second consignment was dispute prior to its shipment. When the product was again inspected upon arrival， it was found that it did not meet the contract specifications. The product was eventually sold by the buyer to third parties at considerable loss， after having undergone a certain treatment to make it more saleable.
卖方提请仲裁，要求收回10%的合同余款。买方提起反诉，声称应从卖方所索费用中扣除买方估计应由卖方赔偿买方的'一笔费用，即：直接损失费、财务成本费、所损失的利润及利息费。
The seller initiated arbitration proceedings to recover the 10% balance remaining due under the contracts. The buyer filed a counterclaim alleging that the seller's claim should be set off against the amounts which the buyer estimates to be payable to the buyer by the seller， i.e.， the direct losses， financing costs， lost profits and interest.
一、适用的法律
I. APPLICABLE LAW
(1) 鉴于合同未含有关实体法的任何条款，故法律问题应根据国际商会仲裁规则第13条第3款决定。根据该条规则，仲裁员们应适用它们认为适合的法律冲突规则所规定的准据法则。
(1) The contract contains no provisions regarding the substantive law. Accordingly that law has to be determined by the Arbitrators in accordance with Art. 13(3) of the ICC rules. Under that article， the Arbitrators will apply the law designated as the proper law by the rule of conflicts which they deem appropriate.
(2) 这是一个由不同国际的卖方和买方签署的在第三国交货的合同。买卖规定为船上交货，故风险在卖方所在国便转给了卖方。由此，卖方所在国似乎就成为与买卖关系最近的管辖地。
(2) The contract is between a Seller and a Buyer (of different nationalities) for delivery (in a third country)。 The sale was f.o.b. so that the transfer of risks to the Buyer took place in (the country of Seller)。 (The country of Seller) accordingly appears as being the jurisdiction to which the sale is most closely related.
(3) 有关国际货物买
国内法。在销售合同中，此债务人为卖方。基于这些因素，卖方所在国的法律似乎便成了规定买卖双方之间合同的准据法。
(3) The Hague Convention on the law applicable to international sales of goods dated 15 June 1995 (Art. 3) regarding sales contracts， refers as governing law to the law of the Seller's current residence. (The country of the Buyer) has adhered to the Hague convention， not (the country of the Seller)。 However， the general trend in conflicts of law is to apply the domestic law of the current residence of the debtor of the essential undertaking arising under the contract. That debtor in a sales contract is the Seller. Based on those combined findings， (the law of the country of the Seller) appears to be the proper law governing the Contract between the Seller and the Buyer.
(4) 至于卖方所在国法律的适用规则，仲裁员们依据的是双方当事人各自陈述的理由，以及仲裁员们从一位独立咨询人处所得的信息。根据国际商会仲裁规则第13条最后一段之规定，仲裁员们也将考虑相关的贸易惯例。
As regards the applicable rules of (the law of the country of the Seller)， the Arbitrators have relied on the Parties' respective statements on the subject and on the information obtained by the Arbitration from an independent consultant. The Arbitrators， in accordance with the last
paragraph of Art. 13 of the ICC rules， will also take into account the relevant trade usage.
二、反诉的可受理性
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COUNTERCLAIM
(5) 仲裁庭认为，1980年4月11日的《关于国际货物销售的联合国公约》(通称《维也纳公约》)是现行贸易惯例的最好渊源，即使买卖双方所在国均不是公约的成员国，倘若买卖双方所在国均为公约成员国，在本案中，该公约不仅可考虑作为贸易惯例适用，而且还可作为法律适用
(5) The Tribunal finds that there is no better source to determine the prevailing trade usage than terms of the United Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980， usually called the Vienna Convention. This is also even though neither (the country of the Buyer) nor (the country of the Seller) are parties to that Convention. If they were， the Convention might be applicable to this case as a matter of law and not only as reflecting the trade usage.
(6) 《维也纳公约》已在17个国家生效，考虑用它适用于国际货物销售中的不符规格事项有通用惯例，应属合情合理。《维也纳公约》第38条第1款规定买方负有“当场检查或叫人检查货物”的责任。买方应在注重或应当注重到瑕疵后的合理期限内通知卖方货物不
符合合同的规格;否则，他将丧失就上述不符规格而提起索赔的权利。
第39条第1款具体规定道：
“如买方在交货后两年之内没有通知卖方，无论乍样，买方都将丧失在货物不符规格问题上的申诉权利，除非此种不符规格构成了对长期担保的违反”。
(6) The Vienna Convention， which has been given effect to in 17 countries， may be fairly taken to reflect the generally recognized usage regarding the matter of the non-conformity of goods on international sales. Art. 38(1)of the Convention puts the onus on the Buyer to “examine the goods or cause them to be examined promptly”。 The buyer should then notify the Seller of the nonconformity of the goods within a reasonable period as of the moment he noticed or should have noticed the defect; otherwise he forfeits his right to raise a claim based on the said non-conformity. Art. 39(1) specifies in the respect that： “In any event the buyer shall lose the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he has not given notice thereof to the seller within a period of two years from the date on which the goods were handed over， unless the lack of conformity constituted a breach of guarantee covering a longer period.”
(7) 本案中，买方在合理的期限内已对货运作过检查，因为在货物抵达之前，一位专家曾被请去检查过装船。买方也应被认定在合理的期限内，即在专家报告公布后的8天内，就产品瑕疵作过通报。
(7) In the circumstances， the Buyer had the shipment examined within a reasonable time-span since (an expert) was requested to inspect the shipment even before the goods had arrived. The Buyer should also be deemed to have given notice of the defects within a reasonable period， that is eight days after the expert's report had been published.
(8) 仲裁庭认为，就本案情况而言，买方遵守了上述《维也纳公约》的要件规定。这些要件要比卖方所在国的法律的规定灵活许多。卖方所在国法律所规定的买方通知卖方的时限非凡短，非凡具体，在这点上，似乎是通用的贸易惯例的一种例外。
(8) The Tribunal finds that， in the circumstances of the case， the Buyer has complied with the above-mentioned requirements of the Vienna Convention. These requirements are considerably more flexible than those provided under (the law of the country of the Seller)。 This law， by imposing extremely short and specific time requirements in respect of the giving of the notice of defects by the Buyer to the Seller appears to be an exception on this point to the generally accepted trade usage.
