南昌大学学报（人文社会科学版）

在涉外司法中，域外禁诉令和平行仲裁程序的频繁运用，对我国海事司法管辖权和程序秩序构成现实挑战。当前，我国海事领域反禁诉与反仲裁实践主要依托《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》中的行为保全制度与《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》中的海事强制令制度，但在制度基础、要件解释与边界控制方面仍存在不确定性，可借《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》修改之机加以明确和完善。海事强制令应具有行为保全法律性质，并作为特别法与一般法下的行为保全制度共同构成反禁诉与反仲裁的规范基础。在此基础上，海事强制令用于反禁诉与反仲裁时，应引入功能主义解释方法，对《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》第五十六条的三个要件进行重释，并基于国际礼让原则强调其受程序理性约束，在涉外仲裁语境中强化对仲裁协议的实质审查，并通过增设听证机制与程序性损害救济完善程序保障，以实现在维护司法主权与保持制度克制之间的平衡。

In the context of transnational adjudication， the frequent use of foreign anti-suit injunctions and parallel arbitral proceedings poses practical challenges to China’s maritime judicial jurisdiction and procedural order. At present， Chinese judicial practice in responding to anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions mainly relies on the conduct preservation regime under the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and the maritime mandatory injunction mechanism under the Special Maritime Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. However， uncertainties remain with respect to their normative foundations， the interpretation of statutory requirements， and the delineation of their applicable boundaries. These issues may be clarified and improved in the course of amending the Special Maritime Procedure Law. Maritime mandatory injunctions should be characterized as a form of conduct preservation in nature， and， together with the general conduct preservation regime under ordinary procedural law， should constitute the normative basis for addressing anti-suit injunctions. On this basis， the application of maritime mandatory injunctions to counter anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions requires a functionalist reinterpretation of the three statutory requirements set out in Article 56 of the Special Maritime Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. At the same time， the exercise of such injunctions should be constrained by procedural rationality grounded in the principle of international comity. In the context of foreign-related arbitration， courts should strengthen substantive scrutiny of arbitration agreements， introduce hearing mechanisms， and establish procedural remedies for injunctive harm， so as to enhance procedural safeguards and strike an appropriate balance between safeguarding judicial sovereignty and maintaining institutional restraint.