仲裁实行自愿原则，仲裁管辖权的成立以有效的仲裁协议为前提。完善仲裁协议效力的审查程序，对正确认定仲裁管辖权，尊重当事人意思自治，保护当事人程序权利，提高纠纷解决效率，具有重要作用。仲裁协议效力的审查经历了从只有法院有权审查到仲裁庭、仲裁委亦有权审查的演变。仲裁庭的自我审查，有悖于程序正义，因此最初只有法院有权审查。法院审查将不可避免地延长仲裁程序、加重当事人负担，因此后来仲裁庭自裁管辖权原则得到了广泛采纳。仲裁委有权审查是我国仲裁立法的独特规定。仲裁委自行审查缺乏配套规则，存在诸多问题，因此仲裁委往往授权仲裁庭审查。法院进行审查，主要是在申请确认仲裁协议效力等仲裁司法审查程序中。该类程序既不像诉讼程序审理当事人之间的实体权利争议，也不像特别程序确认某种法律事实或者权利是否存在，因此应成为单独的一类程序。该类程序的现行规则对当事人程序权利的保障不够充分，因此应根据其特点有选择地适用诉讼程序的相关规则。仲裁庭、仲裁委进行审查，主要是在管辖权异议审查程序中。仲裁庭审查更有利于保障当事人的程序权利并提高仲裁效率，因此除仅靠书面审查便能查明事实的情形，仲裁委应一律授权仲裁庭审查。仲裁立法虽然认可仲裁庭、仲裁委对仲裁协议效力进行内部审查，但是这并不意味着内部审查优先，仲裁效率优先。当事人可以先申请内部审查、再申请外部审查，也可以直接申请外部审查。当事人同时申请内、外部审查的，只进行外部审查。外部审查期间，仲裁程序是否中止由仲裁庭、仲裁委根据案件情况自行决定；当事人在申请外部审查的同时起诉的，仲裁程序只能中止。

The arbitration implements the principle of voluntariness, so the establishment of arbitration jurisdiction is premised on a valid arbitration agreement. Improving the review procedures for the validity of arbitration agreements plays an important role in correctly determining the jurisdiction of arbitration, respecting party autonomy, protecting the rights of parties, and improving the efficiency of dispute resolution.The review of the validity of the arbitration agreement has evolved from only the court having power to review to the arbitral tribunal and the arbitration commission also having power to review. The self-censorship of the arbitral tribunal is contrary to procedural justice, so initially only the court has the power to review. The court review will inevitably extend the arbitral procedure and increase the burden on the parties. Therefore, the competence-competence has been widely adopted. The Arbitration Commission having the power to review is unique provisions of China's arbitration legislation. The Arbitration Commission is unable to review on its own without enough supporting rules. Therefore, the Arbitration Commission often authorizes the arbitral tribunal to review.The court conducts the review mainly in the arbitration judicial review process, such as applying for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement. Such procedures are neither a matter of litigation considering substantive rights disputes between parties, nor special procedures to confirm the existence of certain legal facts or rights, and therefore should be a separate type of procedure. The current rules of such procedures are insufficient to guarantee the rights of the parties, and therefore the relevant rules of the proceedings should be selectively applied according to their characteristics. The arbitral tribunal and the arbitration commission conduct the review, mainly in the jurisdictional objection review process. The arbitral tribunal review is more conducive to protecting the procedural rights of the parties and improving the efficiency of arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration commission shall authorize the arbitral tribunal to review except that the facts can be ascertained only by written examination.Although the arbitration legislation recognizes that the arbitral tribunal and the arbitration commission conduct an internal review of the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement, this does not mean that the internal review takes precedence and the arbitration efficiency takes precedence. The parties may apply for internal review first, and then apply for external review, or apply for external review directly. If the parties apply for internal and external review at the same time, only external review will be conducted. During the external review, whether the arbitral procedure is suspended or not is determined by the arbitral tribunal and the arbitration commission according to the circumstances of the case; if the parties suspend the application at the same time as the external review, the arbitral proceedings can only be suspended.