• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2012

Arbitration is an essential methods of settlement for disputes in international commercial transaction. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have been in force after adoption in 1976. Over the 30 years, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules have been modeled for domestic and international arbitration institutes for setting and revision on their arbitration rules. UNCITRAL Committee has published the revised Arbitration Rules which entered into force after 15 August 2010. Therefore new version of arbitration rules are substituted for the previous version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 since its enforcement. The revised arbitration rules of UNCITRAL have been changed in various items for convergence with new trends and modern practices on arbitration including information communication and technology. The revision of arbitration rules focused on resolving problems in practice and codifying best practice to enhance the efficiency of arbitration conducted under the rules. There are considerable in a number of important respects on the removing the restricted in writing requirement for information technology, adapting the multiparties arbitration, joinder arbitration, truncated arbitral tribunal and adjustment in terms and condition and construction simply. Also a number of provisions have been refined, varied and clarified with new articles included. Conclusively the new revised arbitration rules fill a number of gaps which became apparent in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 to bring into line with new modern practices of international arbitration rules in international commercial disputes. This paper focus on the study the problems and inspired points on significant revised provisions and its considerable points in arbitration environment. This paper is approaching to the comparisons of UNCITRAL revised Arbitration Rules 2010 with previous Arbitration Rules 1976 of UNCITRAL and International Arbitration Rules 2011 of KCAB.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-70
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and discussions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules that have been discussed and considered by the Working Group. At its thirty-ninth session (New York, 19 June-7 July 2006), the Commission agreed that, in respect of future work of the Working Group, priority be given to a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976). At its forty-fifth session (Vienna, 11-15 September 2006), the Working Group undertook to identify areas where a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules might be useful. At that session, it was considered that the focus of the revision should be on updating the Rules to meet changes that had taken place over the last thirty years in arbitral practice. The largely amended provisions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are as follows : Notice of arbitration and response to the notice of arbitration (Article 3), Designating and appointing authorities (Article 4 bis), November of arbitrators (Article 5), Appointment of arbitrations (Article 6), Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration (Article 7 bis), Challenge of arbitrators (Article 9), Replacement of an arbitrator (Article 13), Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Article 21), Interim measures (Article 26), Form and effect of the award (Article 32), and Liability of arbitrators (Proposed additional provisions). There are some differences between the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In order to jnternationalize the Korea's commercial arbitration system, it is desirable that the main articles of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should be admitted to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In conclusion, the Commission was generally of the view of any revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should not alter the structure of the text, its spirit, its drafting style, and should respect the flexibility of the text rather than make it more complex. The Working Group agreed that harmonizing the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law should not be automatic but rather considered only where appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.129-154
• /
• 2021

As our society and industry develop, disputes are becoming ever more complicated and diversified to the point that it is alleged that dispute resolution by court proceedings has certain limits and setbacks. Therefore, it is commonly suggested that mediation by a qualified mediator should come as an alternative method, and there have been many attempts to establish and provide mediation service in the courts and government authorities. To comply with a party's autonomy, which is the essential basis of mediation, and to promote the use of mediation, it is highly recommended that private mediation, rather than court-driven or administrative mediation, shall take the initiative. In the meantime, despite a number of academic research and attempts to increase the awareness and use of mediation nationwide, we have not yet seen meaningful developments due to the longstanding misunderstanding and discredit of mediation. In contrast, Italy has begun to revitalize mediation by enacting 'Legislative Decree No. 28/2020' following the 'Directive 2008/52EC' of the European Parliament and encouraging the so-called via-mediation policy. It is acknowledged to have significantly contributed to the development of private mediation in Italy and the increased use of mediation as a dispute resolution method. It shall be particularly noted that Italy's mediation proceedings have certain traits, including preliminary mediation meetings, mandatory involvement of legal counsel, and tax benefits for the settled cases by mediation. Italy's efforts would provide people with meaningful lessons and perspectives. As society strives to promote private mediation to distribute and utilize the judicial resources' inefficient ways, institutions need to develop practical measures to increase the number of civil and commercial disputes in the mediation proceedings. To that end, legislative efforts to enact relevant laws necessary to provide incentives to disputing parties and establish integrated education and certification programs to train qualified mediators need to start soon.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2010

From the review of Korean arbitration systems with the comparison of those of other countries, we can summarize some issues to be tackled as follows: First, Korean arbitration system started with the purpose of export promotion. This may be the main reason that various domestic disputes have not been resolved by arbitration. Second, the Korean Arbitration Law applies to private disputes. The Law's arbitration scope is wider than that of China and France, but narrower than that of the U.S.A. that encompasses a variety of disputes in the filed of consumer, labor, medical services, patents, etc. Third, active judges or public officials in Korea can not be arbitrator and there is no arbitration court. However, if chief judge allows the necessity, court's judges in the UK can be arbitrator with the mutual agreement of the parties and also arbitration system is operated in the court. Fourth, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB), the only representative institution for arbitration in Korea, is under the Ministry of Knowledge Economy(MKE). This makes it difficult for the KCAB to handle other disputes related to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. Fifth, as mentioned, the KCAB is the unique institution for arbitration by the Law in Korea, while other countries allow have a diversity of arbitration agencies such as maritime arbitration organization, consumer arbitration institution, arbitration court, etc. Therefore, we suggest some ideas to expand the arbitration's area of coverage in Korea as follows: First, there should be more active policies that promote various domestic disputes to be settled by the arbitration system. Second, it is quite needed to expand the scope of arbitration to cover many disputes in the fields of consumer, labor, medical service, advertising, fair trade, etc. Third, there should be discussions to allow court judges as arbitrator and to introduce the arbitration court. Fourth, the KCAB should strengthen its status and roles as general arbitration organization to overcome the limited scope of commercial disputes. For this, there should be the strong support and coordination among the MKE and other government agencies. Fifth, to reduce the burden of the court's complicated and expensive procedures, more efficient disputes resolution systems should be established on the basis of the parties' free will. Each central government agency should streamline the legal barriers to allow industrial organizations under its control to establish their own or joint arbitration system with the KCAB.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.141-163
• /
• 2012

In Korea, although nearly all maritime arbitration cases are dealt with by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), the total number of cases that are referred to the KCAB is relatively small compared with the total number of maritime cases that occur in Korea. There may be reasons why maritime arbitration is not utilized more in Korea. However, of the above reasons, the superseding one may be that there is still a lack of confidence in the credibility and foreseeability of maritime arbitration in Korea. To expand the use of maritime arbitration in Korea, it is essential that the base surrounding maritime arbitration be expanded. In addition, it is also necessary that specialists receivetraining in maritime law. In this context, it is strongly recommended that maritime and admiralty law be taught in law schools and be included as a regular subject on the Korean bar exam. Additionally, to promote maritime arbitration, a rule should be introduced allowing for shortened arbitration proceedings in Korea. Although Chapter 8 of the KCAB Arbitration Rules provide for "Expedited Procedure," this process alone is not because the rules for Expedited Procedure generally apply in arbitration cases where both parties have agreed in a separate agreement to follow the procedures provided or in any domestic arbitration valued atless than 100,000,000 Korean won. Therefore, the KCAB Arbitration Rules for Expedited Procedure must be reformed to encompass international arbitrations. Additionally, experts who are experienced in the maritime sector should be elected as arbitrators. Given the factthat a fair number of arbitration cases can be characterized as international, it is important that businesspersons who are very fluent in English be appointed as arbitrators in order to increase the reliability of maritime arbitration in Korea and save costs. Meanwhile, because lawyers and scholars constitute a considerable portion of KCAB arbitrators, commercial persons from relevant industries should be enlisted as arbitrators. Even though there are arguments for the establishment of an independent maritime arbitration board in Korea, establishment of a separate maritime arbitration board will not directly guarantee the prosperity of maritime arbitration in Korea. Instead of instituting a new maritime arbitration board, it is better that a reorganized KCAB modify existing arbitration proceedings to make them faster and more economical if maritime arbitration is to prosper. In this regard, ad-hoc arbitration would be an option for speedy and thrifty maritime arbitration. Finally, to gain the confidence of domestic and foreign parties, we cannot ignore the importance of advertising the specialties and qualifications of the KCAB and its personnel among business entities.

• Animal Systematics, Evolution and Diversity
• /
• v.11 no.4
• /
• pp.417-434
• /
• 1995

Three species (0. kinbergi, 0. sarsi and 0 . sarsi vadicola) of the genus Ophiura (Echinodermacta: Ophiuroidea) were sampled from the various localities of Korean waters (Kyonggi Bay in March and September, 1989 and February, 1994; Yellow Sea in September and October, 1992; Southern Sea and Korean Strait in May, 1992; and eastern coasts adjacent to Kangnung in April, July, October, 1993 and January, 1994). Results of the examination of 250 Operational Taxonomical Units (OTUs) are presented based on the 20 morphometric variables to evaluate their taxonomic characters and positions. In cluster analysis, 250 OTUs were divided into 3 phenons (0. kinbergi, 0 . sarsi and 0 . sarsi vadicola) at the Euclidean distance levels of 6.84 and 2 phenons (a phenon composed of 0 . sarsi and 0 . sarsi vadicola and the other of 0. kinbergi) at 7.50. Stepwise discriminant analysis was used in order to produce a good discrimination model and 13 morphological characters (the total number of comb papillae, the number of primary comb papillae and shape of comb papillae (2). etc.) were extracted. The results of canonical discriminant analysis illustrated clear distinction among 3 phenons by the distance of 8.26 between 0 . sarsi and 0. sarsi vadicola, 24.24 between 0 . kinbergi and 0. sarsi vadicola and 21.63 between 0 . kinbergi and 0 . sarsi.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2008

Northeast Asia is increasingly making a transition to distinctive and crucial region in the 21st Century and growing into one of world's top three economic spheres along with the EU and NAFTA. In 2003, Korean government announced the Northeast Asian economic hub country plan as an important agenda. As a means of coping with the changing global environment, Korean government designated Incheon in 2003 as the country's first Free Economic Zone ahead of Busan and Gwangyang Bay in the south of the country because Incheon has a geographical advantage linking North America and Europe with Incheon International Airport and Incheon Seaport. The purpose of this paper is to make research on establishment and operation of an arbitral body entitled ${\ulcorner}International Arbitration Center{\lrcorner}$ (IAC) within Incheon Free Economic Zone(IFEZ). For the purpose of this, the writer in this paper, reviewed the necessity of the IAC's establishment and its legal basis as well as the role and function of the Center. Also, the writer presented plans for how to operate the IAC and how to cooperate with the key arbitral organizations of foreign countries for the settlement promotion of commercial disputes including trade and investment. With development of the IFEZ, world-renowned enterprises will invest in the Incheon economic bloc and conduct economic activities, business operation, marketing, logistics, financing, etc. In this connection, diverse types of commercial disputes are expected to occur between foreign companies entering the IFEZ and Korean firms. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) has been operating its liaison office in the IFEZ since 2004. However, in view of the increasing arbitration demand, the IAC should be set up in the IFEZ in the near future by the positive support of the government in the respect of both administration and finance because the free economic zone-related law provides for the installation of arbitration organization. For the success of the IAC, the Center will have to provide not only good quality of arbitral services that can satisfy arbitration parties but also need to conduct researches and make efforts so that arbitration can be utilized well in the IFEZ. If the IFEZ can provide advantageous business environments to those multinational enterprises intending to the Incheon economic bloc, the IAC will also contribute to the settlement of commercial disputes arising from the Gaeseong Industrial Complex in North Korea in view of the geographical advantage and logistic benefit of the IFEZ. Finally, this paper also suggests a new model for a joint dispute resolution system by the initiative of Korean government and Korean arbitral organizations for the settlement of commercial disputes within Northeast Asia, for which the CAMCA(Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas) of NAFTA can be a good example.

• Proceedings of the Technology Innovation Conference
• /
• 1997.07a
• /
• pp.222-223
• /
• 1997

By analyzing the successful innovation case of potato microtuber mass production technology, a representative case of technology-push type creative innovation in an imitation oriented research culture, this paper attempts to figure out conceptual model of creative innovation that is initiated by the public laboratories in catching-up country, Stages of creative innovation can be divided into the internal R&D stage and the external commercialization stage. Success of the internal R&D stage depended on autonomy to secure creative research idea and commitment of individual researchers. Psychological pressure evoked from sportlights of mass media and commitment of sponsor increased the intensity of research efforts of the researcher Recognition of research problem and its significance was intensified by site visits of agricultural fields, and the recognized higher impacts of expected research results and knowledge creation achieved were a fundamental source of self-motivation. In the stage of commercialization stage, various legal, socio-economic, and psychological barriers were confronted. In a catching-up country lacking of experiences of creative innovation, creative innovation process can be regarded as a barrier elimination and cultural revolution process. Among the barriers, psychological refusal of farmers to corn-sized potato seeds was critical, which finally enforced to further researches to enlarge the size of potato seeds. In addition, the researcher has concentrated his research efforts in one specialized research area by getting a series of similar research project funds rather than diversification. It was lucky for him to have a chance to carry out a series of similar researches in one research area during the last 10 years. In getting research funds from government and private companies continuously in one research area, both internal and external promoters played significant roles.