The preferential Rules of Origin (RoO) govern tariff preferences that are given in accordance with the FTA. However, relatively few studies have been devoted to the procedures in settling disputes that are relevant to RoO under the FTA. This study is a first attempt at analyzing the applicability and the potential improvement in dispute settlement procedures in FTAs targeted at the preferential RoO. By exploring three dispute cases involving the preferential RoO, it is suggested that restrictiveness, complexity, and uncertainty that are inherent in the preferential RoO may trigger political tension and dispute. Forming a panel that is capable of mitigating political tension, facilitating participation and early cooperation of experts and stakeholders, and establishing a well-structured enforcement procedure are essential in dispute settlement procedures to resolve disputes involving cases on RoO. Furthermore, the current dispute settlement procedure that hinders the private sector's access should be changed to one that is more open to private sector entities, such as companies, to facilitate the enforcement of the decision. Given that more improved FTA dispute settlement procedure may guarantee the enforcement and application of the FTA preferential treatment in relation with more politically powerful states and foster genuine free trades, more in-depth studies must be conducted on this topic.

International arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Asia is growing in popularity. Singapore has long been acknowledged as a regional arbitration center but Korea is now facing an increased demand as an arbitration center as well. As Singapore competes with Hong Kong and other international arbitration centers, and as Korea tries to become an alternative to Singapore, both Singapore and Korea have updated their arbitral laws and arbitration rules to reflect the current international arbitration trends. This paper examines the recent changes in the arbitration laws of Singapore and Korea, with an emphasis on recent changes in Korean arbitration laws that are designed to increase Korea's popularity as a regional arbitration center. Though Korea's reputation as an arbitration center is increasing, it is still not viewed as a major arbitration service provider. It is against this backdrop that Korea's international arbitration laws and rules will be viewed, with suggested changes to increase Korea's reputation as not only a regional hub but a center of international arbitration.

This paper considers how various types of patent disputes can be more efficiently resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation. For this analysis, it takes three types of patent disputes as a control sample - contractual disputes, infringement disputes and FRAND disputes - and assess how these disputes can be better resolved through arbitration in terms of several criteria, namely, the suitability of the decision-makers, the number of forums in which disputes have to separately decided and enforced, procedural flexibility and confidentiality. The paper takes into consideration that certain types of patent disputes, such as infringement disputes and FRAND disputes are unlikely to be subject to pre-existing arbitration agreements. In these types of disputes, parties may make the decision between arbitration and litigation based on strategic and tactical concerns, rather than legal ones. The paper concludes that, given this limitation, it is not possible to categorically state whether arbitration is more suitable than litigation for resolving patent disputes. The most sensible course to follow in adopting arbitration for patent disputes is for legal advisors to be familiar with the intricate benefits and pitfalls of arbitration in patent disputes, and to actively consider referring a dispute to arbitration over litigation after a dispute has arisen.

In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.

Park Tae-hwan, the Korean Olympic gold medal swimmer, was suspended for eighteen months by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) in September 2014. Park completed his suspension in March 2016, but the Korea Olympic Committee (KOC), relying on its Article 5.6, then prohibited him from joining the national team for an additional three years for the same doping violation. The KOC's penalty exceeded that provided by the World Anti-Doping Code, which governs the Olympics and most international sports federations, and contravened well-established precedent from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The KOC, along with the Korea Swimming Federation, maintained the suspension until decisions by the Seoul Eastern District Court and CAS forced them to retract the penalty. We describe the sports regulations and arbitration decisions governing the Park case, how each side used the law to support their positions, the flaws in the KOC's legal analysis, and the case's resolutions by the Korean court and CAS. Finally, because this legal conflict has damaged the KOC's reputation, created uncertainty over the committee's doping penalties, and undercut the authority of the World Anti-Doping Code and the CAS in Korea, we recommend institutional changes in Korea's sports jurisprudence.

Factual issues in most patent litigation are related to very complicated techniques. Thus, the courts has emphasised that the technology in dispute has to be read and understood through the eyes of a person to whom it is directed. Therefore, among the various processes in federal litigation, most litigation in the field of patent infringement relies on at least some expert evidence. This paper focuses on issues regarding patent dispute evidence, and explore whether there are unresolved issues in evidential rules and procedures of patent proceedings. Further, this paper seeks to demonstrate that both the parties and the courts in patent disputes generally benefit from the current evidence system. However, in a number of Australian cases, the scope of expert evidence in patent cases has been strictly limited. Australian Government identified uncertain issues associated with the present patent enforcement system, due to factors such as a low level of knowledge about what patent rights entail, the high degree of uncertainty of outcome in legal proceedings, etc. Arbitration shall be reviewed and suggested as an alternative to tackling the ongoing problems in the trial system.

This study vindicates similarities and differences of hybrid process of arbitration and mediation between China and Malaysia. Both countries develop hybrid processes combining arbitration with mediation in their own cultural soils. The Chinese dispute resolver plays the dual role of arbitrator and mediator during the proceedings of hybrid process of arbitration and mediation. On the other hand, a different arbitrator plays the role of mediator, if conciliation fails in Malaysia. On the other hand, judges are allowed to act as mediator during the proceeding in China and Malaysia.

The controversies that have surrounded the negotiation of both the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have underlined the difficulties arising out from the adoption of a truly common EU investment policy. Non-governmental organizations have called into question transparency and legitimacy of international investment arbitration during the negotiations. The article presents a reflection about current developments of the EU investment policy addressing, in particular, the criticisms towards the whole investor-to-State system and the EU's efforts in developing a "tailor-made" investment agreement and Investor-to-State Dispute resolution system. Along these lines, the article critically assesses the recently announced proposal for the establishment of an 'Investment Court System' put forward by the EU during the TTIP negotiations.