Under New York Convention, public policy is one of criterions which can be used in the judicial review of international commercial arbitration. The recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused if the arbitral award is contrary to the public policy. Therefore, public policy is regarded as a safeguard to maintain fundamental interests of the state, However, public policy is also considered as a double edged sword for the reason that public policy might be abused determined by its ill-defined concept. With the development of economic globalization, it has become a common problem for states that how to make a balance between fostering the development of international commercial arbitration and maintaining fundamental interests of the state, and the main point concerning this issue is how to execute the rule of public policy correctly and rationally. Starting from the concept of public policy, based on the related legislation and judicial practice, this article analyses the application of public policy in the judicial review of international commercial arbitration. It stresses the best way to limit the application of public policy in international commercial arbitration is make a difference between domestic public policy and international public policy, and points out that it should make a comprehensive analyses when applying public policy in the judicial review in the international commercial arbitration, combining the objective criteria and degree criteria. This article also makes a discussion on the application of public policy in the judicial review of international commercial arbitration in China. It suggests that the rule of public policy still need to be improved in legislation, and emphasizes that it should be more strict and prudent when making judicial reviews on Chinese interregional arbitral awards with the rule of public policy. Key words: international public policy, public policy, international commercial arbitration, judicial review

公共政策制度是《纽约公约》框架下，法院可以据以对国际商事仲裁裁决进行司法审查的一项标准。根据这一制度，对于任何一项违背公共政策的国际商事仲裁裁决，法院有权拒绝予以承认与执行。据此，一直以来，公共政策制度被喻为维护一国社会根本利益的“安全阀”。但与此同时，公共政策制度也被认为是一把“双刃剑”，原因在于，公共政策的抽象性、不确定性赋予法官在司法审查中享有较大的自由裁量权，若不能正确行使这一权限，将会导致公共政策制度的滥用。在全球经济一体化的浪潮下，各国面临着如何在支持国际商事仲裁制度的有效发展与维护本国社会根本利益之间进行平衡的难题，而如何正确的适用公共政策制度成为解决这一问题的关键所在。 本文主要从公共政策的概念入手，以有关国际法律文件及国家的立法、司法实践为基础，对国际社会在国际商事仲裁裁决司法审查实践中公共政策制度的适用现状进行了研究。本文认为，在国际商事仲裁司法审查中，要缩小公共政策的适用，就要区分内国公共政策与国际公共政策，对公共政策进行狭义理解。具体实践中，应结合客观标准、程度标准，从实体和程序方面对有关事项进行质和量的分析，以判断某一裁决是否违反本国的公共政策。另外，文章还从立法和实践方面出发，对中国两岸四地运用公共政策制度对国际商事仲裁裁决进行司法审查的状况进行了探讨，认为两岸四地的立法对公共政策制度的规定过于简单，建议完善立法，尽可能明确公共政策的内涵外延、适用标准，提出在区际商事仲裁裁决的司法审查实践中，应当更加严格谨慎适用公共政策制度。 关键词:国际公共政策 公共政策 国际商事仲裁 司法审查