• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2010

In the past, ADR has not been used as frequently in Japan as it has in other parts of the industrialized world. However, though litigation is still the most utilized vehicle of dispute resolution by Japanese financial institutions, this will be changing. The New Financial ADR system, which was created by a June 2009 amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, is meant to deal with every stage of financial-related disputes and, as such, strives to resolve disputes before they become significant and acts to ameliorate any post-ADR issues that may remain, thereby completing the FIEA's purpose to protect investors. Since the foundation of the New Financial ADR system applies to all related industries, new provisions were set out in 16 business related acts, such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, and FIEA itself. October 2010 will mark the formal introduction of a new system of financial ADR in Japan. New Financial ADR in Japan will be modeled on the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom, but will not feature one comprehensive dispute resolution system in which one dispute resolution institution covers all disputes in the financial field. The New Financial ADR system is merely one step towards a foundation of comprehensive financial ADR such as FOS. It must be noted, however, that this all important first step was over seven years in the making, involving a great deal of discussion, debate, and compromise amongst many parts of Japanese government, business, and society. The New Financial ADR system grants participating parties the ability to stop the clock on any statute of limitations which may correspond to any future possible court cases related to the dispute,13 and further grants the ability to suspend related court proceedings while the parties are utilizing the New Financial ADR system. In addition, where financial institutions have not accepted dispute resolution proceedings or have not accepted a special conciliation proposal, the Ministry of Finance may issue an order compelling compliance if it is found that certain actions are necessary to ensure the appropriate operations of a financial institution's business. In Japan, as best practices have not yet been created.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.279-286
• /
• 2020

On February 4, 2020, the Personal Information Protection Act ("Privacy Act") was amended to facilitate the convergence and utilization of data, a key resource of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and to support the development of the data industry. As the scope of the law applies to telecommunications operators, financial operators, and personal information processing providers, the scope of related dispute settlement is expected to increase. Therefore, this paper first introduces the role and function of the Personal Information Dispute Committee and the institutional standards for personal information dispute mediation, and researches the roles and issues that the Personal Information Dispute Mediation Committee should play in accordance with the revision of the Data 3 Law. In this study, For efficient operation of personal information dispute mediation, expert deliberation by field, new adjustment criteria for new industrial technologies, way to secure business continuity between the Personal Information Dispute Committee and the Personal Information Committee, Secure the link between the mediation decision and courts, and Suggested the strengthening of the operational standards for collective dispute mediation.