DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Close Relations between Arbitration and State Court in each Procedural Stage -With an Emphasis on International Arbitration Agreement-

중재와 법원 사이의 역할분담과 절차협력 관계 -국제적 중재합의 효력에 관한 다툼과 중재합의관철 방안을 중심으로-

  • 김용진 (충남대학교 법학전문대학원)
  • Received : 2017.02.01
  • Accepted : 2017.02.20
  • Published : 2017.03.02

Abstract

This article deals with the relationship between arbitration and state court in each procedural stage. As most legal systems over the world respect arbitration agreement, the relationship between arbitration and state courts puts emphasis on party autonomy and provides the independent power of arbitration agreement tribunal (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Most institutional arbitration rules the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Modern national laws have similar provisions based on Art. 16 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this regards the author throws a question in Chapter II, whether the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, namely the ability of the tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction is worth while persisting, and whether the Kompetenz-Kompetenz-agreement should be regarded as valid, with the conclusion, that this doctrine should concede to the power of state court and that Kompetenz-Kompetenz-Klausel is invalid. In Chapter III the author discusses the issue of whether the breach of an arbitration agreement could lead to the compensation of damage. Although the author stands for the procedural character of arbitration agreement, he offers a proposal that the breach of an arbitration agreement bring about the compensation of damage. The issue of anti-suit injunction is discussed also in this Chapter. He is against the approval of anti-suit injunction based on an arbitration agreement resisting the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country.

Keywords

References

  1. 박영길, "국제상사중재에 있어서 분리원칙과 중재인의 자기관할권판정의 원칙", 중재연구 제13권 2호, 211쪽 이하.
  2. 오창석, "파산절차에 있어서의 중재합의의 효력과 중재절차", 중재연구 제12권 1호(2002. 8), 131쪽 이하.
  3. 석광현, 국제상사중재법연구, 제1권, 2007.
  4. 석광현, "국제상사중재에서 중재합의와 소송유지명령", 선진상사법률연구 제50호(2010.4), 3쪽 이하.
  5. 손경한, "중재합의에 대한 새로운 고찰", 중재연구 제23권 제1호 (2015), 55쪽 이하.
  6. 손경한, "중재합의", 사법연구 1: 계약법의 특수문제 (1983), 123쪽 이하.
  7. Ambrose, "Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law?", 52 ICLQ 2003, pp. 401 et seqq. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/52.2.401
  8. Binder, International Commercial Arbitration, 3. ed. 2010. (인용: Binder, Interna. Commercial Arbitration)
  9. Chee Ho Tham, "Damages for breach of English jurisdiction clauses: more than meets the eye", LMCLQ 46, 2004, pp. 51-56.
  10. Dietz/Schnichels, "Die aktuelle Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum EuGVU und zur EuGVVO", EuZW 2005, pp. 532-558. (인용: Dietz/Schnichels, EuZW 2005)
  11. Flannery, 154 NLJ 2004, pp. 798 et seqq.
  12. Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, 6. Aufl. 2009.
  13. Gottwald, "Internationale Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen", FS Henckel, 1995, pp. 295 ff. (인용: Gottwald, FS Henckel)
  14. Habscheid, "Zur Kompetenz-Kompetenz nach dem neuen Schiedsrecht", FS Schlosser, 2005, pp. 247 et seqq. (인용: Habscheid, FS Schlosser)
  15. Haas, Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung auslandischer und internationaler Schiedsspruche, 1991.
  16. Hausmann, "Einheitliche Anknupfung internationaler Gerichtsstands- und Schiedsvereinbarungen?" FS Lorenz, 1991, S. 359 ff.
  17. Hess/Pfeiffer/Schlosser, The Brussels I-Regulation (EC) No 44/2001: The Heidelberg Report on the Application of Regulation Brussel I in 25 Member States (Study JLS/C4/2005/03).
  18. Honsell/Vogt/Schnyder-Wenger, Internationales Privatrecht, 1996.
  19. Kronke/Nacimiento/Otto/Port (Hrsg.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 2010.
  20. Kropholler, Eeropaisches Zivilprozessrecht, 7 Auflage, 2002.
  21. Kruger, "Anti-suit injunction in the European judicial space: Turner v. Grovit", 53 ICLQ 2004, pp. 1030 et seqq. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/53.4.1030
  22. Manner/Mosimann, "Damages and Fixed Sums for Breach of Arbitration Agreements", FS Schwencher, 2011, II.
  23. Mankowski, "Ist eine vertragliche Absicherung von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen moglich?", IPRax 2009, S. 27 ff.
  24. Nagel/Gottwald, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, 7. Aufl. 2013.
  25. Pfeiffer, Schutz gegen Klagen im forum derogatum, 2013; ders, "Die Absicherung von Ger ichtsstandsvereinbaungen durch Vereinbarung eines materiell-rechtlichen Kostenerstattu ngsanspruchs, Liber amicorum Walter F. Lindacher (2007), S. 77 ff.
  26. Rauscher, Unzulassigkeit einer anti-suit injunction unter Brussel I", IPRax 2004, pp. 405-408.
  27. Reithmann/Martiny/Hausmann, Internationales Vertragsrecht, 7. Aufl. 2009.
  28. Rosenberg/Schwab/Gottwald, Zivilprozessrecht, 17. Aufl. 2009.
  29. Schack, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 6. Aufl. 2014.
  30. Shantar, 82 B.U.L.Rev. 1063, 2002, pp. 1065-1067.
  31. Schmidt, "Anti-suit injunctions im Wettbewerb der Rechtssysteme", IPRax 2006, pp. 492 et seqq.
  32. Schreiber, "Prozessvoraussetzungen bei der Aufrechnung", ZZP 90 (1977), S. 395-417.
  33. Spickhoff, "Die Klage im Ausland as Delikt im Inland", FS Deutsch, 1999, pp. 335
  34. Stephan Wilske, "The Global Competition for the 'Best' Place of Arbitration for International Arbitrations", Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 2008, pp. 1 et seqq.
  35. Schlosser, "Anti-suit injunctions zur Unterstützung von internt. Schiedsverfahren, RIW 2006, S. 486-492 ff.
  36. Tan, "DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES, PRINCIPLED REMEDIES, AND CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION", 40 Texas Int'l. L.J. 2005, pp. 623-662.
  37. Schroder, "The Right not to be sued Abroad?", in: FS Kegel 1987, pp. 523 et seqq.
  38. Schlosser, Der Justizkonflikt zwischen den USA und Europa. 1985; ders, "Materell-rechtliche Wirkungen von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen", FS Lindacher, 2007; ders, "Anti-suit injunctions zur Unterstützung von internt. Schiedsverfahren", RIW 2006, S. 486-492.
  39. Schack, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 6. Aufl. 2013.
  40. Schreiber, ZZP 90(1977), S. 395 ff.
  41. Schutze, Deutsches Internatiuonales Zivilprozessrecht, 2. Aufl. 2005.
  42. Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 7. Aufl. 2005.
  43. Stein/Jonas/Schlosser, Zivilprozessordnung, Kommentar, 22 Aufl. 2013.
  44. Wagner, Prozessvertrage, 1998.
  45. Zoller/Geimer, Zivilprozessordnung, Kommentar, 30. Aufl. 2013.