The arbitral tribunal can render an award according to the authorization of the parties and legal authorization, however, once it render the award beyond its authority, any of the parties could apply for the judicial censorship. The award might be ruled to set aside, not-execute or re-arbitrate, which depends on the statutory judicial censorship system of the arbitral tribunal ultra vires. The arbitral tribunal ultra vires violate, worst of all, the autonomy of will, which is the first principle of all the arbitration activities; secondly, if any of the parties apply for the judicial censorship, the award will lose its finality, which may ruin the regime that the arbitration award shall be final and binding upon both parties; last but not least, it also cause an adverse consequence on efficiency and authority of arbitration. The arbitration procedure includes all the single steps and methods in the proceedings. The regulated arbitral procedures are in favor of hearing smoothly and settling appropriately of arbitral disputes. Although the arbitral tribunal ultra vires is reflected in the final award directly, which is due to the leakages of any arbitral procedures, the inducement, divided into procedural causes and substantive causes, conceals in the proceeding of the arbitration in most cases. The risks of arbitral tribunal ultra vires are still able to be reduced during the arbitral procedures theoretically and practically. Since the arbitral tribunal is the director of procedures and arbitral organization is the manager, if they cooperate for avoiding the arbitral tribunal ultra vires, it would be quite operable and effective. The thesis is based on the theoretical analysis, practical experiences and data information, use experience summarizing, references analyzing, data analysis and other methods to confirm the possibility of avoiding the arbitral tribunal ultra vires during the arbitral procedure. The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter I: Introduction. This part is the general introduction of the whole thesis, which includes the background and the current situation of the topic, as well as the research methods and purposes of the paper. Chapter II: Legal connotation and distinction between other similar concepts of arbitral tribunal ultra vires. This part makes a comprehensive introduction of arbitral tribunal ultra vires with its legal definition of national and international legislation, and then makes a comparison of its distinction between other similar concepts (arbitral tribunal omittance). Chapter III: Hazard of arbitral tribunal ultra vires. As one type of disputes resolution system, arbitration has its own theoretical basis (autonomy of will, arbitration jurisdiction, and arbitral procedure), properties (impartiality, professionalism, and authority) and advantages (confidentiality). This part introduces several hazards of the arbitral tribunal ultra vires with theoretical background of arbitration system, and indicates the necessity of avoiding the ultra vires to prevent these hazards. Chapter IV: Types, occurrence reasons and definition of arbitral tribunal ultra vires. This part introduces several typical types of arbitral tribunal ultra vires with data information and real cases, as well as its definition and criterion. Chapter V: Avoiding arbitral tribunal ultra vires during arbitral procedure. This part gives a few of recommendations about when and how to avoid the arbitral tribunal ultra vires during the procedure.

仲裁裁决“超裁”是指仲裁庭在逾越当事人授权或法律授权的情况下行使仲 裁权，作出裁决的情况。然而，一旦任意一方当事人认定裁决存在“超裁”情况， 即可向法院请求救济，申请对裁决进行司法监督，“超裁”会导致仲裁裁决面临 被法院判定撤销、不予执行或重新仲裁的后果。“超裁”违反当事人意思自治这 一仲裁首要原则，破坏“一裁终局”的仲裁裁决制度，造成仲裁效率下降、公信 力受损等不良后果。仲裁程序是仲裁案件审理步骤及方式的总和，程序的规范有 利于审理的顺利进行与纠纷的妥善解决。仲裁“超裁”虽然体现在最终的裁决书 中，其诱因却往往埋藏在仲裁程序进行的过程中，并可分为程序性事由与实体性 事由。因此，要避免“超裁”，如果从仲裁程序着手，那么无论是在理论抑或实 践层面，都存在较高的可操作性。仲裁庭是仲裁程序的指挥者，仲裁机构则是仲 裁程序的管理者，通过仲裁庭与仲裁机构的共同努力，能够很大程度上避免“超 裁”情况的发生，从而维护当事人利益与仲裁的公正权威。 笔者基于对“超裁”的理论性分析，结合实践经验及数据资料，运用调查法、 经验总结法、文献资料法、统计法等综合研究方法，对在仲裁程序中避免“超裁” 的可能性进行了研究，并提出意见与建议，论文共分为五章： 第一章“引言”：介绍论文课题的研究背景、研究课题之现状、研究方法与 目的，勾勒全文的基本内容与轮廓。 第二章“仲裁‘超裁’概念的法律内涵与其他相似概念的区分”：阐述国内 外法律法规对“超裁”所下的定义，通过分析其法律内涵与性质，并与其他相似 概念（“漏裁”）进行对比，对“超裁”进行较为全面的介绍； 第三章“仲裁‘超裁’的危害”：结合仲裁作为纠纷解决机制存在的理论基 础（意思自治、仲裁管辖权、仲裁程序）、特性（公正性、专业性、权威性）与 优势（保密性），列举了“超裁”对仲裁制度可能造成的几大危害，从而突显避 免“超裁”的必要性； 第四章“仲裁‘超裁’的类型、发生原因与各类型与‘超裁’的界定”：结 合统计数据与具体案例，介绍“超裁”的类型，并阐述“超裁”的界定与判断标 准。 第五章“在仲裁程序中避免‘超裁’”：对于具体能在仲裁程序的哪些阶段避 免“超裁”，并且以何种手段避免进行分析并给出相应建议。