• Korean Association of Arts Management
• /
• no.51
• /
• pp.191-219
• /
• 2019

Adoption of applicable law for the international trade of artworks is closely related to the results of lawsuits. Recently, starting with New York, the hub of the international artworks market, a modern, mixed-law is gradually being adopted more. It is difficult to designate an applicable law of an international trade of artworks through private laws regulations of relevant countries, and the public laws regulations must also be considered in relation to individual benefits and the public benefits to the relevant countries. With regards to the foreign relations issues, Korea's private international law embraces a so-called public order theory, and according to the Section 7 of the Act on the Private International Law and its enactment history, the compulsory provision, which seems appropriate for application to the corresponding matter, applies without regards to the selection of the applicable law. The Civil Act of Korea acknowledges bona fide acquisition of a cultural asset, in principle, if the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is not applicable. Moreover, a lost artwork is also a subject of bona fide acquisition; however, if the relevant artwork is either stolen or lost, the original owner has the right to demand the return of that artwork within 2 years of being stolen or lost according to the Section 250 of the Civil Act. Also, if the buyer purchased from a distributor specializing in the artworks, such as auction, open market or gallery, the buyer could request a compensation of the purchase price from the original owner, and if the buyer purchased through a private transaction, the buyer cannot demand a compensation of the purchase price and must return the artwork.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2013

Overriding Mandatory rules are laws that purport to apply irrespective of the law chosen by the parties to govern their contractual relations. This article examines their role and applicability in international arbitration. The overriding mandatory rules pose a complex and continuing problem for arbitrators because they put the interests of states and parties in direct competition. When a law says that arbitrators must apply it, yet the parties' contract excludes it, what should the arbitrators do? Where should their allegiance lie? The answer depends on the underlying nature of arbitration - and since that can be legitimately conceptualized in different ways, a principled approach to overriding mandatory rules seems to be impossible to provide. Nevertheless, a practical solution is required, because there were European cases in which courts voided valid arbitration agreements made, reasoning that arbitrators certainly would not apply and/or take into account its overriding mandatory rules of indemnity right granted to commercial agent and distributor in Europe. Therefore, this paper first examines status of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international litigation and then explores any possibility of application of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international commercial arbitration. With this analysis, the author reaches into a conclusion that the arbitrator should and/or take into account overriding mandatory rules of another law, yet should limit to them of the country where characteristic performance is made under the contract.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.487-538
• /
• 2013

It is the most critical issue in recent international intellectual property licence disputes to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts. As Korea and the European Union(EU) reached free trade agreement(FTA), and the EU-Korea FTA entered into force on July 1, 2011, the FTA has boosted social, economic, cultural exchanges between the two. As a result of the increased transactions in those sectors, legal disputes are also expected to grow. This situation calls for extensive research and understanding of the choice of law principles applicable to international intellectual property license contracts in the EU. To decide the laws applicable to issues arising from international intellectual property license contracts disputes, the characterization of those issues is necessary for the purpose of applying private international law principles to them. In terms of characterization, intellectual property license contracts fall within contractual matters. In the EU, the primary rule of choice of law principles in contractual obligations is the Rome I Regulation. Because the choice of law rules, such as private international law principles, the Rome Convention(1980), and the Rome I Regulation, differ in the time of application, it is essential to clarify the time factor of related contracts. For example, the Rome I Regulation applies to contracts which were concluded as from December 17, 2009. Although party autonomy in international contracts disputes is generally allowed, if there is no choice of law agreement between the parties to the contracts, the objective test rule of private international law doctrine could be the best option. Following this doctrine, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 1 provides the governing law rules based on the types of contracts, but there is no room for intellectual property license contracts. After all, as the rule for governing law of those contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 2 should be applied and if there are countries which are more closely connected to the contracts under the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 3, the laws of those countries become the governing laws of the contracts. Nevertheless, if it is not possible to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 4 should be applied in the last resort and the laws of the countries which are the most closely connected to the contracts govern the license contracts. Therefore, this research on the laws applicable to intellectual property license contracts under the Rome I Regulation suggests more systematic and effective solutions for future disputes in which Korea and the EU countries play the significant role as the connecting factors in the conflict of laws rules. Moreover, it helps to establish comprehensive and theoretical understanding of applying the Korean Private International Law to multifarious choice-of-law cases.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.223-258
• /
• 2013

1967 Outer Space Treaty(Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; OST) is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. OST is based on the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space announced by UNGA resolution. As of May 2013, 102 countries are states parties to OST, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification. OST explicitly claimed that the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies are the province of all mankind. Art. II of OST states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means", thereby establishing res extra commercium in outer space like high seas. However 1979 Moon Agreement stipulates that "the moon and its natural resources are the Common Heritage of Mankind(CHM)." Because of the number of the parties to the Moon Agreement(13 parties) it does not affect OST. OST also established its specific treaties as a complementary means such as 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention. OST bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications. However OST does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. China and Russia submitted Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT) on the Conference on Disarmament in 2008. USA disregarded PPWT on the ground that there are no arms race in outer space. OST does not have some articles in relation to current problems such as space debris, mechanisms of the settlement of dispute arising from state activities in outer space in specific way. COPUOS established "UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" based on "IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" and ILA proposed "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris" for space debris problems and Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) established "Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities" and ILA proposed "1998 Taipei Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Dispute" for the settlement of dispute problems. Although OST has shortcomings in some articles, it is very meaningful in international law in considering the establishment of basic principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. OST established the principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space as customary law and jus cogens in international law as follows; the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The principles of global public interest in outer space imposes international obligations erga omnes applicable to all States. This principles find significant support in legal norms dealing with following points: space activities as the "province of all mankind"; obligation to cooperate; astronauts as envoys of mankind; avoidance of harmful contamination; space activities by States, private entities and intergovernmental organisations; absolute liability for damage cauesd by certain space objects; prohibition of weapons in space and militarization of the celestial bodies; duty of openness and transparency; universal application of the international space regime.