• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.165-182
• /
• 2004

According to the Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, an appropriate authority of each contracting state has to define and allocate tasks and coordinate activities between the departments, agencies and other organizations of the State, airport and aircraft operators and other entities concerned with or responsible for the implementation of various aspects of the national civil aviation security programme. It is generally recognized that the three major parties responsible for the aviation security at an airport are appropriate government departments, airport operator and airlines. The airlines are the beneficiaries of security activities as well as the provider of security activities. So, their responsibilities have been critical in protecting civil aviation from unlawful interferences. The airport has to take leading role in implementing security tasks at airport area because the airport operator is the provider of airport facilities and services to its customer and the security activities belong to its services. The government has the responsibilities not only for establishing regulatory system but also for oversighting the implementation of aviation security activities. The paper is to review the revision of aviation security regulation and the changes of aviation security responsibilities, and costs and task assignment in Republic of Korea after September 11 event. The responsibilities, tasks and costs assigned to airlines, airport operators and government are introduced and evaluated in terms of economic fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of aviation security activities. The drawbacks of new legal system are pointed out and the suggestions to remedy them are proposed as conclusions.

• 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.