As the Internet rapidly emerges as a speedy and cost-effective way of purchasing goods from overseas websites, the number of disputes arising out of overseas direct purchases also increases. In such situations, a disgruntled consumer might be left without an effective remedy. Providing an alternative approach to redress such grievances might assist in resolving such disputes and in increasing consumer confidence in e-commerce. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) will allow consumers to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost, and simple way. It also helps to eliminate complex jurisdictional and choice-of-law problems. On the other hand, it has many problems such as having inadequate confidentiality and security, not being able to meet the "writing" requirement for arbitration of disputes, having difficulty in enforcing online arbitration agreements, having difficulties in enforcing online decisions and so on. This article investigates relationship online disputes and ODR and suggests ways that ODR can work best in resolving disputes arising out of overseas direct purchases. To expand the ODR system in online disputes, it is very important for domestic consumers to recognize the concept and usefulness of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and ODR systems. The Korean government must also help consumers recognize the ADR mechanisms of dispute resolution by public campaign advertisement of ADR systems. Further education of dispute resolution in higher educational institutions is also required as well as assisting the KCAB with funds and the establishment of ADR Law.

Cross-border consumer disputes are on the increase as cross-border trade between consumers and businesses continues to grow. Cross-border consumer disputes are difficult to solve, because there are different languages, laws and institutions between the parties. These consumer disputes can be solved more easily by Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in comparison with utilizing court processes. ODR is a branch of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. In this respect it is often seen as being the online equivalent of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). On 18 June 2013, the new legislation on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution has been published - the "Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Consumer ODR". The new legislation on ADR and ODR will allow consumers and traders to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost and simple way. The United Nations working group for online dispute resolution of cross-border electronic commerce transactions (UNCITRAL Working Group III) has been underway since 2010 to continue its work on procedural rules for ODR.

Pursuant to Article 109(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act of Korea, a person, not an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, articles, entertainment or other benefits or who gives or promises to give those things to a third party, in compensation for providing or mediating legal services, such as examination, representation, arbitration(emphasis added), settlement, solicitation, legal consultation, making of legal documents, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million or may be punished by both and there is no specific provision on qualification of arbitrator except on nationality of an arbitrator in the Arbitration Act of Korea. Then, the question arises, can any non-lawyer arbitrator who receives arbitrator's fees be punished in accordance with the Attorney-at-Law Act in Korea? To search for an answer for this matter, this paper examines the Arbitration Act or the Civil Procedure Code of 33 major countries in the world and explains a research on the participation ratio of non-lawyer arbitrators in all 360 arbitration cases registered in 2012 at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB).

Under current international investment law clear criteria to determine standards of indirect expropriation are absent. Arbitral tribunals determine on a case-by-case whether an indirect expropriation has occurred by conducting a fact-based inquiry. However, three common determination standards can be inferred by analyzing prior arbitration cases. The appropriate analytical framework that can be applied to determine whether a state's measure constitutes an indirect expropriation is as follows. i) the degree of economic invasion of the state's action into the foreign investor's property rights and durability of the period, ii) interference with the foreign investor's distinct and reasonable investment-backed expectations, and iii) the nature, purpose and character of the state's measure. Therefore, it is necessary to fully acknowledge and to utilize strategically this determination standard. However, derived standards cannot be applied to all disputes en masse. So, it is desirable to exclude ambiguity and to clearly define the determination standard of indirect expropriation in investment agreements, since arbitral tribunals can apply different determination standards on a case-by-case basis. And, based on the discussions until now, more developed standards and direction in response to demand should be established through consistent analysis and review of precedents related to indirect expropriation. Lastly, This study is expected to be a useful guideline to prepare a necessary countermeasure to prevent dispute related to indirect expropriation beforehand or in case of dispute occurrence.

Intellectual property law is slowly fighting to keep pace with the rapid growth of the fashion industry. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, even in the US and other top fashion nations, forcing designers and fashion companies to rely on their trademarks to protect their work. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems as witnessed in a recent Christian Louboutin case, leading the parties to resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution(ODR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, are increasingly emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry (CFDA in the US case) should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members, both fashion designers and corporations alike, can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem In particular, for the US fashion industry, the ongoing Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act(IDPPPA) anti-counterfeit legislation could have caused a chilling effect against innovation. New designers with no name and less resources who could normally flourish producing inspired-by designs may find themselves subject to copyright infringement legislation since the IDPPPA may expand the protection of established designers and brands with more resources. This fear and its implication could be solved by the fashion industry itself since fashion experts know best how to handle these fast-paced issues arising in the field. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to protecting innovation within fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an ADR process. This can mitigate the uncertainty created by the IDPPPA or any other legislation from elsewhere, which could result in a shying away from experimentation with inspired-by designs.