国籍识别是外国仲裁机构在中国仲裁存在的主要问题，对于这类裁决应该属于涉外仲裁裁决、《纽约公约》中的非内国裁决还是外国仲裁裁决，无论从我国的立法、理论还是司法实践中都无法得出明确的答案。 这种不确定性带给我们的困惑是：识别裁决的国籍究竟有什么意义？我国为什么会在该类裁决的国籍识别问题上存在争议？经过分析可知，国籍对于裁决有两个重要的意义：首先，裁决的国籍决定其承认和执行时应该适用的法律和遵循的程序；其次，裁决的国籍决定了哪国法院对该裁决享有司法撤销权。而我国在该类裁决的识别问题上存在诸多争论的根本原因在于我国采用的是仲裁机构标准。国际商事仲裁的现代化伴随而来的是仲裁机构所在地与仲裁地的分离，使得仲裁机构标准不能准确地识别裁决的国籍。而国籍的不明确不仅影响了我国司法实践中的判断，带来了裁决执行及撤销中的风险，而且降低了我国作为仲裁地的吸引力，为我国仲裁机构的外设和开展国际竞争造成了障碍。因此，我国亟需解决此问题，并且解决问题的关键是改变现有的仲裁机构标准。 通过分析英、美、德、法这四个仲裁大国在国籍识别上的立法和实践，我们发现这些国家几乎都经历了国籍识别标准的立法改革，在《纽约公约》订立之后的70-90年代，逐渐地摒弃了过去的标准，而采用公约中的仲裁地标准。并且在美国和法国还出现了将国籍所涵盖的两个意义，确定所适用的法律和决定哪国法院享有撤销权进行分离的现象。本文将此种现象概括为后仲裁地标准，即仲裁地仍然决定裁决的国籍，仲裁地的法院对本国境内的裁决享有撤销权，但是在法律适用方面，本国境内的具有涉外因素的裁决将通过本国法律的指引进而适用和外国仲裁裁决同样的法律。鉴于多数国家都是《纽约公约》的缔约国，这部同样的法律可以选择《纽约公约》。同时，范登伯格教授提出的 2008“新纽约公约”表明了公约欲将其适用范围扩大至所有具有涉外因素的裁决，与后仲裁地标准不谋而合。 通过进一步比较仲裁程序法标准、仲裁地标准和后仲裁地标准后可知，后仲裁地标准汲取了仲裁地标准的优点，克服了其缺点，既尊重了当事人的意思自治，保障了其司法救济权，也维护了仲裁地国的主权和法律权威，而且将进一步减少因各国法律之间的差异所带来的裁决效力不稳定现象，因此我国应采用后仲裁地标准。但是在通过立法改变目前的仲裁机构标准之前，我们认为适宜将该类裁决识别为非内国裁决，这不仅符合公约的要求，也符合我国目前的立法，并且根据公约第5条第1款第5项的规定，我国仍可享有撤销权。

The main issues on foreign arbitration institutions arbitrating in China is identifying the nationality of the arbitration awards, whether they are concerning foreign arbitral awards belonging to China , no-domestic awards or foreign awards ,which arouse the debates from both the legal scholars and practitioners. Whereas, the answer is still uncertain from China's legislation, legal theory or even the juridical practice.The debates give us two main questions: First, what’s the meaning of identifying the nationality of the arbitration awards? Second, why the answer is controversial in China? Through the analysis in this article, we find two meanings of the nationality. On the one hand, the nationality should be required to determine the applicable law in the procedure of judicial review of the award by the court; On the other hand, nationality determines which countries enjoy the right to revoke the awards. The underlying cause of the controversy is that China uses the arbitration institution as the connecting point in identifying the nationality. Modern international commercial arbitration accompanied by the separating of the seat of arbitration and arbitration institutions, so that the arbitration institution can not accurately identify the nationality of arbitral awards. The uncertain of the nationality not only affects our judgment in judicial practice, brings the risks within the execution and revocation of the arbitral awards, but also reduces China’s attractiveness as a place of arbitration and cause obstacles to the peripherals of Chinese arbitration institutions. Therefore, it’s essential to the resolve this problem and the key is to change the existing standard and choose a most appropriate one. By analyzing the UK, USA, Germany, France these four countries’ legislation and practice on the nationality identification, we could see almost all of these countries experienced a legislative reform in the connection point towards nationality identification, after signing the "New York Convention", the gradually abandoned the past standards during the 1970s to 1990s, and then use arbitral seat as connecting point. Besides, a new tender appeared in United States and France. They separated the two meaning which is originally covered by the nationality. This paper named the new tender as “the after arbitral seat standard” , in another words , the court in the seat of the arbitration still have the right to revoke the awards , but in the application of the law, they apply the same law to the arbitral awards with foreign elements arbitrated in its territory and foreign arbitral awards. Given most countries are parties of the "New York Convention", make it to be the best choice of this “same law”. The new "New York Convention" raised by Professor van den Berg in 2008 further confirmed the intention of applying the Convention to all arbitral awards with foreign factors.By further comparing the arbitration procedure act standard , arbitral seat standard and the after arbitral seat standard, shows that the “after arbitral seat standard ” learn the advantages of the arbitral seat standard and overcome its shortcomings, it not only respect the autonomy of the parties, protecting their right to judicial relief, but also maintain the sovereignty and authority of the arbitration State, and will be further reduced the instability of the effectiveness of the arbitration award due to the differences between national laws. But before changing the arbitration institution standard by legislation, we’d better recognize this kind of arbitral awards as no-domestic awards. which not only meets the requirements of the Convention, in line with the current legislation but China also have the right or obligation to revoke the arbitral awards, based on the provision of the Article V 1(e) in the “New York Convention”.