仲裁相比于诉讼,在更大程度上体现了当事人的意思自治,这一点在仲裁协议的拟定上表露无遗。仲裁协议只在协议双方当事人之间产生效力,是双方合意将其纠纷提交仲裁机构解决的约定。对于仲裁协议之外的当事人,由于不存在有效的仲裁协议,往往即使是跟纠纷有实体权利义务关系,也不被认为是仲裁案件的当事人,而不应该纳入仲裁的视野。超出仲裁协议加入当事人的仲裁裁决也被我国《仲裁法》列为可撤销的裁决的范围之内。在严格囿于传统仲裁效力范围的指导下,仲裁实践中出现了实体法与《仲裁法》一定程度上的冲突,如何看待这样的冲突并提出解决方法,是本文所要关注的问题。 Compared with litigation, arbitration reflects the party’s autonomy of purpose to a greater extent, which is fully demonstrated in the formulation of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement, which is effective only between the parties to the agreement, is an agreement by both parties to submit their dispute to the arbitration institution for settlement. In the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, parties other than the arbitration agreement are often not regarded as parties to the arbitration case even if they have substantive rights and obligations with the dispute, and should not be included in the arbitration field of vision. Arbitration awards that go beyond parties to the arbitration agreement to join the parties are also within the scope of the arbitration law as a repeallable award. Under the strict restriction of the scope of traditional arbitration, there is a certain degree of conflict between the substantive law and the Arbitration Law in the practice of arbitration. How to treat such conflicts and propose solutions is the issue that this article pays close attention to.