• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.217-234
• /
• 2007

동북아시아 국가들은 세계 무역 및 투자에 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있다. 동북아시아 역내 및 역외 국가들과의 경제교류는 앞으로 계속 늘어날 것으로 전망되며, 이로 인한 국제상사분쟁은 국제상사중재 등 ADR에 의해 해결될 수밖에 없을 것이다. 동북아시아에서 ADR 제도가 발전되기 위해서는 무엇보다도 한국의 대한상사중재원, 북한의 조선국제무역중재위원회, 중국의 중국국제경재무역중재위원회, 일본의 일본상사중재협회, 러시아의 러시아상공회의소 부설 국제상사중재법정, 카자흐스탄의 카자흐스탄국제중재기관, 몽골국가중재법정 상호간의 중재 업무 전반에 관한 협력제제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 국제상사중재에 관하여 동북아시아에 새로운 바람이 불고 있다. 경제자유구역 및 남북간 경제교류와 관련한 상사분쟁이 상사중재로 해결될 수 있는 법, 제도적 기반이 마련되었기 때문이다. 지난 해 한국에서는 대한상사중재원 주도하에 무역클레임 센서스가 실시되고 국제중재세미나가 개최되었으며 국제중재규칙이 제정(2007년도 2월 1일 시행 예정)된바 있다. 동북아시아 지역에서 국제상사중재제도가 발전되고 저변이 확대되기 위해서는 중재기관들 간의 협조체제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 한편 한국도 동북아시아의 중재허브로 성장하기 위해서는 국제금융, M&A 등 중재 영역을 확대하고 경제자유구역 및 남북상사중재 등과 같은 새로운 영역에 대처를 잘 해야 할 것이다. 아울러 정부 당국의 재정적 지원과 행정적 배려도 수반되어야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.133-159
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews 2019 new arbitration rules of Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). JCAA has amended its Commercial Arbitration Rules, and its Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration. Also, it has introduced a new Interactive Arbitrations Rules. These new rules take effect from 1 January 2019. First, principal amendments of JCAA Commercial Arbitration Rules are such as arbitrator impartiality, tribunal secretaries, no dissenting opinions, expedited proceedings, arbitrator fees, administrative fees. Second, JCAA's new Interactive Arbitration Rules compel communication from the arbitral tribunal to the Parties and introduce a system of fixed compensation for arbitrators. Third, JCAA's Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration are designed to provide the minimum essentials to allow the UNCITRAL Rules to be overseen by an institution. The only significant updates focus on arbitrator remuneration. This paper presents the intent and some implications of JACC's 2019 new rules for Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) arbitration rules. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and improvement on the facilitating of arbitration system in Korea.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.