• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.65-97
• /
• 2014

Arbitration is the dispute methods for speedy and economic resolutions in international commercial areas. In maritime disputes cases in East Asia, Korea and Japan are the regional benefits to cover and deal with the maritime cases on arbitration. And Korea and Japan are the competitive maritime industry for heavy shipbuilding industry, cargo carrier, processing and transhipment service on ports, and ship financial services in national competitive areas. Japan is the Tokyo maritime arbitration commission(TOMAC) as an uniquely capable of dealing with arbitrations involving problems arising in the sea field. TOMAC provides amended its arbitration rules 2014 aiming at matching with the maritime disputes circumstances with three maritime arbitration rules as ordinary rules, simplified rules and the rules of small claims arbitration procedure. KCAB however, as the unique commercial arbitration board in Korea is dealing on all of the commercial disputes on only the international commercial arbitration rules in 2011. Though KCAB is dealt with maritime dispute cases on international arbitration rules in Korea, it is small and simple compared with TOMAC in Japan. Maritime disputes are highly complicated and embroiled with multi-parties contract and subcontracts arising under contracts relating to bills of lading, charter parties, sale and purchase of ships, shipbuilding, ship financing and so forth. This paper is to provides a discussion and comparison on recently arbitration rules focus on the maritime aspects on Korea and Japan. We need to consider to make an independent and special institute and maritime arbitration rules including the multiparty consolidation and med-arb provisions for handling the disputes and resolution of maritime conflict cases in Korea.

• 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.