Arbitration is a procedure that will commence pursuant to the parties' agreement to deliver their disputes to an arbitrator or arbitrator; in turn, who will then render a fair decision thereof. After an arbitral decision is made, there exist twelve situations that any of the parties may bring an action to set aside the arbitral award in accordance with article 23 of the Commercial Arbitration Statute of Taiwan (currently under article 40 of the new Arbitration Law) . Summarizing the cases decided by the Taiwan's Supreme Court during the past decade, we can find out three most controversial or even self conflicting issue: 1.the problem related to the preliminary requirement proceedings and the right to render final decision; 2.the question whether an arbitral judgment should append reasons; and 3.the issue whether an arbitration is an " arbitrage de droit " or " amiable compositeur." On June 24, 1998, the above Commercial Arbitration Statute has been amended and modified as the Arbitration Law. At the time this article is finalized, there was no reported decision or precedent made available under the new Arbitration Law. As a result, the discussions herein will be emphasized upon the Commercial Arbitration Statute and also centered on the most controversial problem of preliminary proceedings in the construction project arbitration. The rest of the foregoing issues will have to be addressed in another paper. In practice, the disputing parties may agree that certain preliminary proceedings be brought before their disputes can be submitted to arbitration. Without the commencement of such preliminary proceedings, the Taiwan courts often consider such violation as a ground for the other party to bring an action to set aside the rendered arbitral award 1 which has been affirmed be the Taiwan Supreme Court in these years. Categorizing said Supreme Court's cases can draw to the following conclusion: The party that sues for setting aside the arbitral award by alleging this requirement of preliminary proceedings is the governmental agency, which interesting phenomenon may imply the great potentiality of power abuse; furthermore, when the parties form the contract, aid terms and/or requirements are nor clearly specified and thus ill be subject to construction whenever disputes arise. Consequently, this results in certain uncertainty while application of the agreement is made. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the foregoing requirement procedure can be conceptualized into four categories in order to further analyze and compare some with the FIDIC condition, i.e. , -hat the effect will be if the foregoing condition is not observed; should the doctrine of autonomy of the parties be governing; any applicability of the rule limiting standardized agreement; the observance the due process of law? ... The authors seek to repond to the above questions in this article. Apparently, the most powerful function of the foregoing required proceeding is to facilitate the procedure involved therein. But in substance, rapidity is one of the main features in arbitration. If the arbitration has been recognized, it is redundant to further adopt the preliminary proceedings since the entire arbitral proceedings would be otherwise delayed. As far as the preliminary proceeding is concerned on the aspect of the system level, instead of recognizing same as part of the arbitration proceedings it should be categorized as one element of the arbitration proceedings. The foregoing requirement of preliminary proceeding should be deemed as an arbitrary requirement, which implementation will be solely up to the autonomy of the party; hence, when not observed it is not one of the grounds of action for setting aside arbitral award. Or, its positive function will be sabotaged.