国际实践中出现的管辖协议或仲裁协议大多都具有双边性，即双方当事人对于争议解决的选择具有对称、同等的权利。然而，由于当事人的议价能力与风险承担有所差异，因此在实践中催生出一系列区别于传统争议解决协议的“不对称争议解决协议”。不对称管辖协议最早出现于金融行业，例如，在贷款市场协会（Loan Market Association）标准条款中，出资方可以选择在任何有管辖权的法院提起诉讼，而贷款方只能接受英格兰法院的排他性管辖。另外，不对称仲裁协议中的双方当事人共同约定通过仲裁解决争议，但又允许一方当事人选择诉讼解决；或者双方约定诉讼解决争议，但又允许一方当事人选择仲裁解决；或者只允许一方当事人选择仲裁或诉讼作为争议的解决方式。不对称仲裁协议同样常见于金融领域，但近年来却有向商事领域蔓延的趋势，正逐渐引起学界的关注。各国对于这类协议的效力问题主要聚焦在当事人争议解决权利的不对称性上，由于没有明确的立法规定，因此各国司法实践对此问题也呈现出截然不同的态度。

基于上述背景，本书拟通过对不对称争议解决协议的研究，试图回答以下几个值得深思的问题：第一，如何对不对称争议解决协议进行界定？第二，不对称争议解决协议具有哪些表现形式？第三，司法实践中不对称争议解决协议的效力如何，以及是否具有正当性？第四，中国对于不对称争议解决协议的态度究竟如何？以及是否有可完善之处？

为回答上述问题，本书将从六个部分展开：第一部分是不对称争议解决协议的基本问题，其中涉及不对称争议解决协议的定义、范围和类型，还包括对于不同类型协议的推演；第二部分是不对称争议解决协议的理论源起，旨在回顾与梳理意思自治原则的起源与发展。第三部分是不对称争议解决协议的准据法，旨在明确此类协议的法律适用应作何选择以及在实践中的适用可能。第四部分是不对称争议解决协议的正当性困境，该部分着重对否定此类协议的实践进行了系统梳理，主要涉及四个方面，即“恣意处分性”“程序平等性”“合同相互性”和“显失公平”。第五部分是不对称争议解决协议的正当性证成，该部分着重对肯定此类协议的实践进行系统梳理，主要涉及两个方面，即“尊重意思自治原则”和“事先分配风险”。第六部分是中国不对称争议解决协议的司法实践及完善建议，该部分在梳理完中国的司法实践后，就中国应采立场和完善途径提出了本书观点。

总的来说，无论是出于对契约自由的维护，还是配合中国大力推广“一带一路”倡议和建设亚太仲裁中心的现实需要，中国都应积极地认可不对称争议解决协议的效力。不对称争议解决协议满足中国法律中有关协议的有效性规定，既不构成中国法律下的“显失公平”，也不违反中国的“公共政策”。此外，中国在积极认可不对称争议解决协议的同时，应当首先限制其所适用的领域，在弱势当事人领域中排除其适用。同时，为了全面地认可不对称管辖协议的效力，中国在公约层面上有两个可行性选择，一是可以考虑对《选择法院协议公约》第22条作出互惠声明；二是可以充分利用《海牙判决公约》以推动不对称管辖协议的有效性认定。而对于不对称仲裁协议而言，中国应当明确“或裁或审”协议的情形，以避免不对称仲裁协议被认定无效。

关键词：不对称争议解决协议；不对称管辖协议；不对称仲裁协议；意思自治原则；显失公平

Abstract

In international practice,most jurisdiction agreements or arbitration agreements have a bilateral nature,meaning that both parties have relative and equal rights to choose dispute resolution.However,due to differences in the bargaining power and risk taking of the parties involved,a series of“asymmetric dispute resolution agreements”have emerged in practice,which are different from traditional dispute resolution agreements.Asymmetric jurisdictional agreements first appeared in the financial industry,for example,in the standard terms of the Loan Market Association,investors can choose to file a lawsuit in any court with jurisdiction,while lenders can only accept the exclusive jurisdiction of English courts.On the other hand,in asymmetric arbitration agreements,both parties jointly agree to resolve disputes through arbitration,but allow one party to choose litigation for resolution;Alternatively,both parties may agree to resolve the dispute through litigation,but allow one party to choose arbitration for resolution;Alternatively,only one party is allowed to choose arbitration or litigation as the dispute resolution method.Asymmetric arbitration agreements are also common in the financial field,but in recent years,there has been a trend of spreading to the commercial field,which is gradually attracting attention from the academic community.The effectiveness of such agreements in various countries mainly focuses on the asymmetry of the parties'dispute resolution rights.Due to the lack of clear legislative provi sions,judicial practices in various countries have also shown completely different attitudes towards this issue.

Based on the above background,this book aims to answer the following thought-provoking questions through the study of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements:firstly,how to define asymmetric dispute resolution agreements?Secondly,what are the manifestations of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements?Thirdly,what is the effectiveness and legitimacy of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements in judicial practice? Fourthly,what is China's attitude towards asymmetric dispute resolution agreements?And is there anything that can be improved？

To answer the above questions,this book will be divided into six parts:the first part is the basic issues of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements,which involves the definition,scope,and types of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements,as well as the deduction of different types of agreements;The second part is the theoretical origin of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements,aiming to review and sort out the origin and development of the principle of autonomy of will.The third part is the applicable law of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements,aiming to clarify the choice of legal application for such agreements and their potential application in practice.The fourth part is the legitimacy dilemma of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements,which focuses on a systematic review of the practice of denying such agreements,mainly involving four aspects:“potestative”,“procedural equality”,“mutuality of Contract”,and“unconscionability”.The fifth part is the justification of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements,which focuses on systematically reviewing the practice of affirming such agreements,mainly involving two aspects:“respecting the principle of party autonomy”and“allocating risks in advance”.The sixth part is the judicial practice and improvement suggestions for asymmetric dispute resolution agreements in China.After revie wing the judicial practice in China,this part proposes the viewpoints of this book on the stance and improvement approaches that China should adopt.

Whether it is for the maintenance of contract freedom,or to meet the practical needs of vigorously developing the“One Belt,One Road”strategy and building the Asia-Pacific arbitration center,China should actively recognize the effectiveness of asymmetric dispute resolution agreements.The asymmetric dispute resolution agreement satisfies the validity provisions of the agreement in Chinese law,which neither constitutes“unconscionability”under Chinese law nor violates the requirements of“public policy”.

In addition,while actively recognizing the asymmetric dispute resolution agreement in China we should first limit its applicable field and exclude its application in the field of vulnerable parties.Secondly,in order to fully recognize the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction agreement,China has two feasible options at the convention level.One is to consider making reciprocal declaration to article 22 of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreement;Second,we can make full use of the Hague Judgment Convention to promote the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements.As for the asymmetric arbitration agreement,China should clarify the situation of the“selecting arbitration or litigation”clause,so as to avoid the asymmetric arbitration agreement being found invalid.

Key Words: Asymmetric Dispute Resolution Agreement; Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreement;Asymmetric Arbitration Agreement;Party Autonomy;Unconscionable