In the case note, the author briefed the United States Ninth Circuit＇s decision in the ＂Rogers v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line＂, reviewed the historical background of the U.S. congressional policies of affording special statutory status to seafarers and their wage claims in federal courts and favoring arbitration under the New York Convention and the precedents upon which the Court relied in reaching the holdings of this case. The author followed the same order in which the Court examined the issues and analyzed the Court＇s reasoning in whether the arbitration agreements contained in the employment contracts were excluded by the exemption clause of the Federal Arbitration Act （FAA）, whether the Convention Act trumped FAA in its application to this case and whether the arbitration agreements were conscionable or the arbitration provisions conformed to public policy. The author then discussed that the Court was correct in its holdings and pointed out the possible opposite holdings and the underlying rationale. The case note represented the Court＇s ruling in favor of arbitration after weighing the conflicting congressional policies. At last, the author elaborated the case note＇s implications to China＇s future legislations on seafarers＇ rights.%简要介绍美国联邦上诉法院第九巡回法庭the“Rogersv．RoyalCaribbeanCruiseLine”案的案情，回顾美国国会对船员在法院诉讼追偿工资的法定保护和支持执行《纽约公约》下仲裁的两个政策的历史背景以及法庭判案所遵循的先例，按照对案件争议点的审理思路，逐一分析法庭对船员雇佣合同中仲裁协议是否被美国《联邦仲裁法》排除条款排除、《公约法案》和《联邦仲裁法》发生冲突时的优先适用、仲裁协议是否合理以及仲裁条款是否符合公共利益的推理过程，论证法院判决的合理性，提出与判决相反的可能性解释，从而得出结论：出于权衡国会相互冲突的政策的目的，法院判决强制执行仲裁。最后，提出该案例对中国船员立法的借鉴意义。
展开▼
