A franchise business is a business in which the owners, or "franchisors," sell the rights to their business logo, name, and model to third party retail outlets, owned by independent, third party operators, called "franchisees." There are a number of features in franchising or terms in franchise agreements that may lead to disputes between franchisors and franchisees. These disputes may arise because of underlying risks in the franchise relationship, franchise agreement, or conduct of the parties. In this case, ADR is an effective way to resolve disputes in a quicker and often less costly way than having to go to court. If an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, then arbitration becomes the next step to resolving the differences. Whereas mediation is non-binding and focused on facilitating the parties to find a resolution that is acceptable to both, arbitration is binding and may result in a decision that is not acceptable to one of the parties. These situations can be resolved through experienced arbitration as arbitration allows franchisees to settle matters promptly and outside of the public eye. In addition, franchise dispute arbitration is usually less costly than going to traditional court. Considering all of these, reaching an agreement will also have typical clauses that address the issue of dispute resolution. It is again a more efficient process than going through the legal process and courts and is often less costly. By going through arbitration, the parties agree to give up their rights to pursue the dispute in the courts. However, there is a problem that the arbitration prior to the agreement and under the terms would be contrary to the restriction of jurisdiction under the "ACT ON THE REGULATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in Korea.

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

This study analyzed some cases of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commision (CIETAC) related to the application of the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). As a contracting party of the CISG, China has accumulated a considerable amount of experience in applying CISG through commercial arbitrations. This study sought to understand how CISG is operated in commercial arbitration in China. By analyzing actual cases in China, Korean commercial arbitration can avoid mistakes and further improve. This study of Chinese cases will give some useful information for Korean companies. As defined by the CISG, the applicability can be divided into direct application and indirect application. When China joined the CISG, it made a reservation out of Article 1(1)(b). Korea and China are contracting parties to CISG and CISG is, therefore, directly applied. It is beneficial for Korea to understand how CIETAC is indirectly applied in China then. Some of the results of this study are as follows: First, CIETAC made a correct judgment most of the time on the direct application of CISG. However, there were mistakes in the judgment of the nationality of the parties in a few cases. The parties must clearly define applicable laws when entering into a contract. Secondly, the 2012 "CIETAC Arbitration Rules" was revised so that the "party autonomy" was introduced into Chinese commercial arbitration concerning indirect application. Therefore, the principle of autonomy of the parties was not fully recognized in the past judgments. Instead, the domestic law of China was applied in accordance with the reservation of Article 1(1)(b). Thirdly, China did not explain the application of CISG in Hong Kong, which led to ambiguity in concerned countries. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the status of CISG in Hong Kong. In addition, Korean companies should clearly define the applicable laws when dealing with Hong Kong companies.

When the host states do not comply with the investor-state arbitral awards voluntarily, it is difficult for the successful claimants to seek the enforcement of arbitral awards against the host state because of the doctrine of state immunity. This raises a question whether the investors might be able to seize the assets of the state-owned enterprises, as well as those of the host states. The investors might consider the properties held by state-owned enterprises as an attractive target especially when it has been established that the host state is responsible for the act of its state-owned enterprise. In such case, the investor might argue that the close relationship between the state-owned enterprise and the host state has already been recognized so that the commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise could be subject to attachment. On the other hand, the host state might argue that the state-owned entity exists separately from the state, and thus its assets cannot be equated with those of the host state. Moreover, even if this argument is not accepted and, as a result, the properties of the state-owned entity is equated with those of the host state, the host state might still be able to argue that non-commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise are immune from execution.

The fashion industry has been growing in Korea, but the law and the dispute resolution have been less than effective so far. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, ending up with designers and fashion companies relying on their trademarks to protect their design. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems and leads to resorting to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, however, are emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry 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. From 2016, KCAB's Fashion Industry Dispute Advisory Committee (FIDAC) for ADR has promoted a better solution for disputes in the fashion industry. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to procuring innovation in fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an alternate dispute resolution process. The ADR process can mitigate the uncertainty created by relevant legislation or any other disputes, which could result in shying away from any business in the fashion industry.