我國實務見解對於載貨證券仲裁條款，拘泥於當事人簽名與否，不符國 際公約與英美法制，亦抵觸仲裁法。按仲裁法理，載貨證券載有仲裁條款， 而未抵觸相關定型化契約規範時，透過載貨證券交付，構成當事人仲裁合 意；海商法第78 條允許運送關係當事人約定仲裁地與仲裁規則，並視為仲 裁協議一部份，明文承認載貨證券仲裁條款效力。關於載貨證券引置傭船契 約仲裁條款之效力，因仲裁法強調仲裁合意之彰顯，故引置條款未指明引用 傭船契約仲裁條款者，應認為未形成仲裁合意；反之、若明確指向傭船契約 仲裁條款，則構成運送人與載貨證券第三持有人間之仲裁合意。惟仲裁法或 海商法就載貨證券引置條款無明文規範，宜明文納入以免爭議。海商法第78 條第2、3 項試圖以在我國仲裁達到保護內國人目的，惟條文未跳脫仲裁合 意之拘束，形同具文。值此鹿特丹規則制訂之際，宜再檢討相關規範。若欲 保障內國人，應貫徹漢堡規則或鹿特丹規則精神，使受貨人不受仲裁協議拘 束而得片面指定仲裁地或仲裁規則。

Regarding the formality of arbitration clause on bills of lading, our judiciary opinions are insistent upon the signature requirement of the involving parties, which contradict not only the international conventions and the Anglo-American legislations, but also our Arbitration Law. Under the Arbitration Law, a bill of lading containing an arbitration clause that constitutes consent to arbitration by exchange of letter or other communications between parties if the rules for adhesive contract terms are satisfied. Article 78 of the Maritime Commercial Law recognises the validity of arbitration clause on bills of lading as it allows parties to re-negotiate the seat and rules of arbitration thereof. With respect to the validity of incorporation clause on bills of lading referring to charter parties, specific reference to arbitration clauses is required as the Arbitration Law emphasises on the consent to arbitration. Article 78 attempts to secure domestic arbitration of maritime dispute so that domestic consignees are protected. However, the actual wordings of the provision are contradictory. As the Rotterdam Rules are recently enacted, amendment to the aforementioned legislations may be reconsidered. If the goal of protecting domestic consignees still takes priority, the UNCITRAL conventions must be implemented into our legislation precisely so parties can deviated from the arbitration seat or procedural rules in the original arbitration clause in order to protect domestic consignees.