禁诉令起源于普通法系国家法院对当事方的一种衡平法救济。随着仲裁制度的发展，仲裁庭签发禁诉令的实践已不罕见。仲裁庭签发禁诉令的权力来源是排他性仲裁协议、仲裁规则和仲裁地的法律。在仲裁制度发达的国家或地区，包括英国、法国、瑞士、香港、新加坡、美国等，已经有许多仲裁庭基于排他性仲裁协议而签发禁诉令的实践，仲裁禁诉令往往被视为一种临时措施。目前，中国还没有仲裁庭签发禁诉令的实践。中国目前的法律没有明确赋予仲裁庭采取临时措施的权利，而是将采取临时措施的权利赋予人民法院。中国2021年7月30日公布的《仲裁法（修订）（征求意见稿）》第43条赋予了仲裁庭采取临时措施的权利。这可能成为中国仲裁庭签发禁诉令的法律依据。在此背景下，研究外国仲裁庭签发禁诉令的实践显得尤为必要。本文的写作正是基于这样的目的。

本文分为四章，分别讨论了仲裁禁诉令的权力来源、执行和救济。第一章分析仲裁庭签发禁诉令的权利来源。仲裁庭签发禁诉令的直接权利来源是排他性仲裁协议。由于大部分仲裁规则都赋予仲裁庭采取临时措施的权利，当仲裁地法律未限制仲裁庭作出临时措施的权利时，仲裁庭往往以临时措施的形式签发禁诉令。

第二章分析在仲裁地以外的国家/地区承认与执行仲裁禁诉令的可行性。一方面，由于仲裁禁诉令可能不属于《纽约公约》下的“裁决”，也不符合“终局性”的要求，仲裁禁诉令难以在《纽约公约》的框架下得到各缔约国法院的执行。另一方面，在一些区域内执行仲裁禁诉令是较为可行的。比如，一些《国际商事仲裁示范法》法域的国家可以依据相关国内法执行临时措施/禁诉令。又比如，对于欧盟成员方的法院而言，仲裁地位于欧盟的仲裁庭作出的禁诉令可以得到执行。此外，美国法院已经有承认与执行仲裁庭作出的临时措施的先例。

第三章与第四章分别以仲裁禁诉令的申请方与被申请方为视角，分析仲裁程序当事方可以采取的救济。作为仲裁禁诉令的申请方，救济方式包括：向仲裁地法院提起确权判决（宣告性判决）、申请由法院签发禁诉令，或者申请法院强制执行仲裁庭已经签发的禁诉令。此外，仲裁禁诉令的申请方还可以要求对方当事方承担平行诉讼造成的额外仲裁费用，或者向仲裁庭申请作出赔偿损害的裁决。作为禁诉令的被申请方，救济方式包括：向仲裁地法院申请撤销禁诉令、向执行地法院申请不予承认与执行、申请禁止仲裁令，反禁诉令和禁止执行令。

It is not unusual for an arbitral tribunal to issue an anti-suit injunction. The source of authority for an arbitral tribunal to issue an injunction is the exclusive arbitration agreement, the arbitration rules and the law of the seat of arbitration. In countries or regions with developed arbitration systems, including the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States, there has been practice of arbitral tribunals issuing anti-suit injunctions based on exclusive arbitration agreements, and arbitration injunctions are often regarded as an interim measure. At present, there is no practice in China of arbitral tribunals issuing anti-suit injunctions. Current Chinese law does not explicitly give arbitral tribunals the right to take interim measures, but rather gives the right to take interim measures to the people's courts. Article 43 of China's newly published Arbitration Law (Revised) (Draft for Public Comments) gives the arbitral tribunal the right to take interim measures. This may become the legal basis for Chinese arbitral tribunals to issue anti-suit injunctions. In this context, it is particularly necessary to study the practice of foreign arbitral tribunals in issuing anti-suit injunctions. This article is written with such a purpose in mind.

This paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 analyzes the source of the right of the arbitral tribunal to issue an anti-suit injunction. The direct source of the right of an arbitral tribunal to issue an anti-suit injunction is the exclusive arbitration agreement. Since most arbitration rules give the arbitral tribunal the right to take interim measures, when the law of the place of arbitration does not restrict the tribunal's right to make interim measures, the arbitral tribunal often issues anti-suit injunctions in the form of interim measures.

Chapter 2 analyzes the feasibility of recognizing and enforcing an anti-suit injunction issued by an arbitral tribunal in a country/region other than the seat of arbitration. On the one hand, it is difficult to enforce anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals in the courts of Contracting States under the New York Convention because they may not be "awards" under the New York Convention and do not meet the requirement of "finality". On the other hand, it is more feasible to enforce arbitration injunctions in some regions. For example, some countries in the jurisdictions of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration can enforce interim measures/injunctions in accordance with relevant national laws. For example, injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals whose seat of arbitration is in the EU can be enforced by the courts of EU member parties. In addition, there is precedent for U.S. courts to recognize and enforce interim measures granted by arbitral tribunals.

Chapters 3 and 4 analyze the possible remedies available to both parties from the perspective of the claimant and the respondent to an injunction. As the applicant for an arbitration injunction, the remedies include filing a confirmatory judgment (declaratory judgment) with the court of the place of arbitration, applying for a new injunction issued by the court, or applying for a court to enforce an injunction already issued by the arbitral tribunal. In addition, the party seeking the injunction may seek additional arbitration costs from the opposing party as a result of parallel proceedings, or may apply to the arbitral tribunal for an award of damages. As the respondent to an injunction, the remedies include: applying to the court in the place of arbitration to set aside the injunction, applying to the court in the place of enforcement for non-recognition and enforcement, applying for an injunction against arbitration, a counter-injunction and an injunction against enforcement.