• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2023

In international commercial arbitration, interim measures play a crucial role in enforcing arbitral awards by prohibiting a party from hiding assets or destroying any evidence which are critical during arbitral proceedings before the arbitral tribunal renders a final award. While Chinese commercial arbitration system acknowledges interim measures, it has faced criticism for perceived deviations from the evolving international arbitration trends. Nevertheless, recent developments indicate that China is actively aligning itself with the global trend in promoting international commercial arbitration, leading to notable changes in interim measures. This paper aims to examine the prevailing international trends of interim measures in commercial arbitration and conduct an analysis of the current status of interim measures in Chinese commercial arbitration by analysing some relevant cases and regulations. By doing so, it can provide practical insights to Korean companies on how to effectively utilize interim measures when they settle their disputes by arbitration with Chinese counterparts.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how governments determine interim measures based on relevant case studies. In most countries, the arbitral tribunal will recognize the interim measures, but china still recognizes the court's own authority. This is inconsistent with international trend. Although the Arbitration Act and the Civil Procedure Act were amended in 2017, but there is no consistency between these laws and arbitration rules for interim measures. Therefore, this paper analyzes the attitude of the Chinese government to interim measures and suggests practical implications for international arbitration dispute resolutions. Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of temporary measures and timely use in China can play an important role in protecting the rights of Korean companies in commercial arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2020

This study focuses on the binding power of the interim measures of the arbitral tribunal in ICSID arbitration and the effects of non-compliance. Upon consideration of the intentions of those who made these rules, given the interpretation of the provisions of Article 47 of the ICSID Convention and Article 39 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, it was found reasonable to consider that the interim measures made by the arbitral tribunal in ICSID arbitration were not binding. However, in actual ICSID arbitration, most arbitral tribunals approve the binding power of the interim measures based on the purposes and the characteristics of the interim measures. As such, there is a certain distance between the legislative intention for interim measures in ICSID arbitration and the judicial practice, but considering the demand for maintaining the integrity of the arbitration procedure, it is reasonable to consider that the interim measures are binding. In addition, the fact that the interim measures have binding power can increase the possibility that the party will comply with the interim measures. Thus, the binding power of interim measures not only encourages voluntary compliance to the interim measures of the party, but can also cause negative consequences for the party if it is not met. In other words, the arbitral tribunal will be able to form negative inferences against the party who does not comply with it in a procedural side, and in the practical side, the party who does not comply with the interim measures will be compensated for the additional damages for non-compliance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.215-238
• /
• 2012

This paper is to review the interim measures of arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitration and to compare the emergency arbitrator systems of international arbitration institutions including the ICDR, SCC, SIAC, ACICA, and ICC. Most arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measures of protection. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 are regarded to contribute significantly to the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. A party that needs urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal may make an application for such measures. Major international arbitration institutions have their own rules and provisions for the emergency arbitrator system, which was set forth first by the ICRD in 2006. The application requirements for emergency arbitrators are almost the same. However, there are significant differences in details such as appointments and applications for challenging emergency arbitrators, the process and form of the emergency arbitrator's decision, etc. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider these differences for more desirable emergency arbitrator proceedings in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.315-341
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 1999년에 전면 개정된 한국의 중재법과 1925년에 제정된 미국의 연방중재볍 및 2000년에 제시된 개정통일중재법의 내용 중 중재인의 권한과 의무들에 관한 규정들을 비교 분석한 것이다. 우선, 미국 중재법의 기본법이라 할 수 있는 연방중재법은 1925년에 제정된 이래 중재 이슈에 관한 발전들을 담아내지 못한 채 진부한 과거의 법률을 그대로 유지하고 있다. 따라서, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 중재판정과 같은 기본적인 권한 규정 외에 중재인의 임시적 처분이나 민사책임의 면제, 고지 의무등 새롭게 진전된 중재 환경의 변화나 논의들이 다루어지지 않고 있다. 그러나, 미국의 통일주법위원전미협의회가 주체가 되어 제시한 2000년의 개정통일중재법은 중재이론이나 케이스의 발전들을 반영하였을 뿐만 아니라, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 훨씬 구체적인 규정들을 담아내고 있다. 개정통일중재법은 중재언의 권한을 개정 이전보다 훨씬 강화하는 대신, 보다 엄격한 윤리적 의무를 부과함으로써 균형을 유지하려 하고 있다. 특히, 중재인의 올바른 중재판정을 이끌어 내기 위해 증거 확보에 있어 보다 강한 절차적 권한을 부여하고 있는 것이 특정이다. 아울러, 중재인으로 하여금 임시적 처분을 내릴 수 있는 권한을 부여하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 징벌적 배상을 결정할 수 있게까지 규정하고 있다. 그러나, 중재인의 절차적 권한의 강화는 동법이 의도한 바와는 달리 중재를 재판에 유사한 구조로 만듦과 동시에, 중재의 신속성과 최종성을 해치는 결과를 초래하는 것이 아닌가 하는 우려와 지적을 낳기도 한다. 한편, 한국의 중재법은 중재인의 임시적 처분권한과 고지의무를 규정하고 있지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법과 달리 민사적 책임면제 규정을 두고 있지는 않다. 특히, 한국 중재법에서 중재인은 증거를 수집하기 위하여 당사자의 임의적 협조에 의존하지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법에서는 증거개시제도까지 채택하고, 제 3 자도 소환할 수 있는 등 중재인의 절차적 권한이 훨씬 강하므로 한국 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한은 미국의 개정통일중재법에서의 그것보다는 훨씬 제한적이다. 한국의 중재를 더욱 실효성 있게 하기 위해서는 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한에 관한 규정을 보완해 주어야 할 것이다. 또 성공적인 중재를 위해서는 중재인의 전문성과 함께 윤리의식이 중요하므로 상사중 재원은 별도의 중재인 윤리규정을 제정해야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.65-83
• /
• 2011

The purpose of Emergency Arbitrator System is to provide parties with the possibility of obtaining interim measures before constitution of the arbitral tribunal. This paper examines the Emergency Arbitrator System set forth in Article 32 and Appendix II of Arbitration Rules of Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) in comparison with Article 37 of ICDR International Arbitration Rules. This paper also provides a case study of 4 Decisions rendered by Emergency Arbitrators under the auspices of SCC in 2010. It was found that it took only 4 days on average from the date upon which the request for emergency interim measures was registered to SCC to the decision rendered by Emergency Arbitrators. The figures of average days reflect its rapidity well, one of the most preferred characteristics of arbitration. However, a case study of SCC decisions shows that only one request for interim measures was successfully granted. In other words, it was found that the requirements for granting of interim measures by emergency arbitrator were quite strictly applied. If interim measures is to be granted, it was found that the requesting party should prove to satisfy the requirements for granting of interim measures as follows: First, the requesting party has to demonstrate that it may suffer irreparable or serious harm in commercially-sensible, not in a strictly literal sense unless the interim measure is granted. Second, the party requesting interim measures has to persuade the Emergency Arbitrator that the request was of an urgent nature. Third, the requesting party is required to meet the reasonable possibility that it may succeed on the merits of the claim.

• Proceedings of the Korean Radioactive Waste Society Conference
• /
• 2009.06a
• /
• pp.35-36
• /
• 2009

지속가능 에너지원인 원자력은 또한 글로벌 에너지원의 특성을 갖추고 있다 핵연료는 원자로에 장전되는 신규 핵연료를 구성하고 있는 우라늄 채광 단계에서부터 연소 후에 발생하는 사용후 핵연료 (SNF 또는 SF) 관리 단계에 이르는 전과정에 걸쳐 핵연료 사이클로 파악되고 있다. 이러한 전과정 관점에서 볼 때, 핵연료 사이클에 관여하는 이해관계자는 자국뿐만 아니라 다국가 (multination)를 포함하고 있다. 특히, 후행 핵연료 사이클인 사용후 핵연료의 저장, 처리, 처분 단계에서는 다국가 시나리오를 배제하지 않는 사용후 핵연료 관리 전략의 도입이 고려될 수 있다. 여기서 다국가는 접경 국가, 인접 국가, 핵연료 공급 국가, 재처리 제공 국가, 재처리 위탁 국가, SNF 통과 허용 국가, SNF 저장 부지 제공 국가, SNF 향후 이용 국가 등이 될 수 있다 [김성호 2006]. 현재 우리나라에서는 여러 국가로부터 수입되고 있는 신규 핵연료 물질을 연소시켜 나온 사용후 핵연료를 부지내에 임시 저장하고 있다. 사용후 핵연료 발생량의 추산에 따르면, 2016년쯤에 현재 임시저장 용량이 포화될 예정이다 이러한 상황에서 다국가 시나리오를 포함한 관리 전략은 다국가 시나리오를 배제한 관리 전략과 다각적인 측면 에서 비교 검토될 필요성이 있다. 사용후 핵연료의 영구 처분장 부지 확보를 해결하기 위한 선행 단계로 공론화 단계가 지금 준비되고 있다. 예컨대, 단기 공론화 관리 방안의 하나로 비록 소극적인 입장이지만 타국 위탁 재처리 방식이 고려되고 있다 [KRS 2009] 이 연구에서는 단기적인 사용후 핵연료 관리 전략으로 여러 가지 다국가 수준의 저장, 처리, 처분 방식으로 바탕으로 다국가 시나리오들을 제안하려고 한다. 이들 다국가 시나리오를 포함한 관리 전략은 현재 다국가 시나리오를 배제한 국내 사용후 핵연료 처분장 부지 선정이 정치적/사회적 수용성 문제로 어려운 상황에 처할 경우에 해결책을 찾는 데에 기여하리라 본다. 또한, 부지 선정 단계에서 바라지 않는 난항이 나타나는 경우에 국가 차원의 한 대비책으로 다음을 제안한다: 한편으로는 자국 저장 시설이 추진되면서, 다른 편으로는 타국 저장 부지를 확보하는 전략이 검토되어야 한다. 이러한 이중 노선 (dual track) 전략은 여러 유럽 국가에서 이미 고려되고 있는 방안이다 [Greenpeace 2005] 다양한 다국성 정도 (a degree of multinationality) 의 저장, 처리, 처분 방식을 연결하는 가능한 다국가 시나리오 구조가 Fig.1에 제시되어 있다. 다국가 시나리오를 구성하는 기본 요소는 다음과 같다’ 1) 자국 임시 저장; 2) 자국 재처리; 3) 자국 중간 저장; 4) 자국 영구 처분; 5) 다국가 중간 저장; 6) 다국가 재처리; 7 ) 다국가 영구 처분. 이들 기본 요소들을 다국성 정도에 따라 결합하면 다양한 다국가 시나리오들이 얻어진다. 이들을 포함한 SNF 관리 전략은 크게는 1) 다국가 재처리 전략， 2) 다국가 저장 및 재처리 전략， 또는 3) 다국가 처분 전략 등으로 분류될 수 있다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.63-82
• /
• 2016

In order to cope with the changes of International Commercial Arbitration, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) regulated an Emergency Arbitrator for the first time, implementing the arbitration rules in China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone on May 1, 2014. Moreover, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) also regulated the Emergency Arbitrator in the revised arbitration rules on January 1, 2015. However, it caused considerable contradiction that SHIAC and CIETAC admitted an interim measure decision by the Emergency Arbitrator under the circumstance that the Chinese court can impose a preservative measure in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Arbiration Act. This study attempted to compare the main contents of an Emergency Arbitrator regulated in the arbitration rules of SHIAC and CIETAC with arbitration rules of representative arbitral institutions which operate an Emergency Arbitrator. In addition, this study verified the application features and problems through comparing the rule of SHIAC and CIETAC with the rule related to the preservative measure in Chinese law.