• 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.19 no.1
• /
• pp.25-44
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this parer is to examine the specifies of Institutional Arbitration and Ad Hoc Arbitration. The court prefers the institutional award in the enforcement rather than the award issued under the name of arbitrators alone. For example, the ICC Court of Arbitration scrutinizes awards for completeness, adherence to the ICC Rules and internal consistency, which since the court assurance for enforcement. In terms of arbitration costs, for which the ad hoc arbitration is considered to have comparative advantages, the institutional arbitration may not be more expensive than ad hoc arbitration, as in most commercial case, the administrative fees are insignificant. This paper suggests the standard or model arbitration clauses in institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. These Clauses contains the minimum elements necessary to render the arbitration agreement enforceable and effective. So both parties may add the specific contents such as the number of arbitrator, the place of arbitration and the language. Especially, in Ad Hoc Arbitration without designated set of rules, more clean clause for appointing arbitrators will be needed.

• 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.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.19 no.3
• /
• pp.43-66
• /
• 2009

This paper investigates what are the types and legal grounds for interim measures in the U.S. arbitration practices. The statutory ground for the interim measures is the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. Another ground, probably the most important, is the parties' own intentions to adopt the interim measures in their arbitration proceeding. Most typical interim measures in arbitration include preliminary injuction, attachment and antisuit injunction. In the U.S ex parte motion for interim measure is rarely allowed while the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law specified an ex parte interim measure. In launching the interim measures, the US courts have demanded several requirements including imparability, probability of success and passing of the balance test. In general, the U.S. courts have properly interfered with the procedural issues in arbitration unreined but leaving the substantive issues untouched. It is believed that such interference has helped to enhance the credibility in arbitration with respect to fairness and justice.

• 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.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.19 no.1
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.

• 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.