• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• Proceedings of the KAIS Fall Conference
• /
• 2002.05a
• /
• pp.184-186
• /
• 2002

우리나라는 매년 홍수피해가 되풀이되고 있다. 홍수피해는 댐, 제방시설 등의 사전적 예방조치 이외에 보험을 통한 사후적 보상제도가 절대적으로 필요하다. 그러나 국내에는 아직 홍수보험제도가 도입되지 않고 있어 문제가 되고 있다. 피해자의 경우 정부로부터의 최소한의 복구지원금을 받고 있을 뿐이다. 이에 본 고에서는 국내 홍수피해 현황을 살펴보고 홍수보험의 도입방안을 제시한다. 홍수보험의 도입을 위하여 정부, 보험회사 및 주민의 인식전환이 필요하다. 참여주체별 역할에 대해서 살펴보면, 정부는 보험료 일부를 지원하여야 하며, 특히 거대보험사고에 대한 최종 지급보증(재보험회사 역할)을 하여야 한다. 그렇지 않으면 이익추구를 목표로 하는 보험회사가 거대위험에 대한 부담감으로 홍수위험의 인수를 기피하기 때문이다. 물론 보험회사도 홍수보험에 관한 한 어느 정도 사회공익적 차원에서 보험을 운영한다는 자세가 필요하다. 개인도 당연히 자신의 사유시설물에 대한 위험관리의 주체가 되어야 하며, 이를 위하여 보험료를 부담하겠다는 인식 전환이 필요하다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.9-35
• /
• 2017

This article is to study the life and philosophy of Jonjae Gidaeseung, who was at strife with his days and did not negotiate with himself, with focus on two concepts of buron(不穩, unrest) and 'sympathy'. It is the fact that to study the traditional philosopher is likely to be enlightening. In order to prevent the risk, we need to define first the concept of unrest as including anxiety to critical resistance. Also, I would like to propose the concept of sympathy in order to grasp the function of his mind which judges whether his feelings and actions are valid from an emotional horizon of unrest. Methodologically this article is to adopt a transversal and correlative thinking by combining an east Asian Confucian traditional concept unrest with a modern one space. It is because this research is to show a significant meaning when we study highlighted and hidden layers of our life and politics in 'now-here' and the 'between space' even though this transversal and correlative study shows the horizon of his life. This article is to investigate how a case is structured by occurrences and divergences and reinterpret a meaning from an emotional horizon. This process is done centering on two terms Guchatuan(pursuing ease ignobly), and Suwolbingho(moon reflected in the water and ice in a bottle), which is the source of Bingwoldang. The two terms were used by Jonjae himself. The latter shows an opposite meaning from the first and is accordingly a way by which we can look into his life and days. My research of Jonjae's life and politics from the emotional-philosophical level is original in that it reveals emotional traces beyond his philosophical ideas which previous studies did not show. In this article, I showed that Gobong was ambitious and resolute, and definite in his judgment and therefore was not good at controlling his uprightness. Also he was too straightforward to purify a language. His unrest characters made him conflict with old ministers and high ranking officials and therefore they avoided him even thought he was excellent in writing and learning and talented. He was oriented toward living by goodness and right Ways, which is summed up as Gisesa(vague movement, situational advantage, and death).

• Korean Journal of Environmental Biology
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.223-227
• /
• 2007

Crop loss and damage by wildlife are becoming more serious to residents inside and around National Parks of Korea annually. It could be caused by small size of Parks, which is couples of ten $km^2$ only, and more than a third of total parks' areas are belonging to privates. Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is one of the most harmful pests in nationwide. Treading down crop field using as bedding or resting site are major damaged types and foraging behavior is following. Besides of boars, Korean water deer (Hydropotes inermis), racoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides), and badger (Meles meles) are another serious pests. Mainly, farm products planted in upland, such as corns, sweet potatoes, cabbages, etc. are harmed easily, a rate reaches up to 76.9% of whole losses. 92.4% (n=187) of interviewees, who are mostly seniors, cultivate small crop fields smaller than 1 ha. Crop damage would be started from June to late November, time differences are happened due to latitude, climate condition, and crop differences of National Parks. Dusting animal repellents are easier and widespread methods to prevent animal foraging to crop fields and installing noisy makers using gun powder and setting up scarecrows are traditional methods for repelling animals. Nevertheless, effects of these self-defence are turned out to be useful soon after labors done only. Since legal compensation for crop damages by wildlife are not prepared systematically so far, crop loss are rarely reported to local government by most farmers. Systematic and objective methods for quantifying of crop loss by wildlife and population managements system should be offered urgently to well-managed animals habitat and residents' living inside National Parks.