• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.55-89
• /
• 2003

What are the international aviation regimes? It is said that they are sets of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures of international aviation around which aviation actors' (states-actors, intergovernmental aviation organization, international aviation conventions, airlines and their organizations etc.) expectations converge in a given aviation issue-area for the purposes of the human welfare and the operations of the stable civil aviation. In this regards, the purposes of this study are focused on the aviation actors' shifts. Chronologically, international aviation regimes have been developed by some stages as followings; The 1st stage is the period from 1944 Chicago Convention to 1978 US Deregulation Act, when the aviation regulations and rules within the international aviation relations were implemented by Chicago-Bermuda regimes as Christer Jonsson pointed out. In this first stage, the sovereignty for the airspace over their countries is absolute. The second stage is the period from 1978 to '1992 Open Skies Agreement' between US and Netherlands. In this regime, airlines' activities as well as state-actors' have been actuated. The third stage is the period from 1992 to the contemporary. In this stage, airlines' activities for the consumers such as 'Open Skies Agreements', 'e-commerce business', 'airspace open policy within EU area', 'service open policy of WTO', and 'airlines' strategic alliance' are the central focal points in the world aviation relationship. In the conclusion, this phenomenon of the core actors in the international aviation rules has been shifted from the states-actors to the non-states actors especially, operating airlines, or consuming customers. Finally, I' d like to suggest that international aviation regimes should be developed to promote and facilitate the globalized level for the people's movements among the global aviation society. That is the way to proceed to the welfare and peace for all human beings of the World.