• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제18권4호
• /
• pp.195-217
• /
• 2016

국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(CISG)은 국제매매의 통일적인 법창출을 통하여 국제무역을 증진시키기 위한 국제조약이다. CISG는 상이한 체약국에 영업소를 둔 당사자간 물품매매계약에 적용된다. 일방당사자가 하나 이상의 영업소가 있는 경우, 영업소는 계약과 이행에 가장 밀접한 관련이 있는 곳이다. 그러나 영업소가 갖는 중요성에도 불구하고 CISG는 아무런 정의를 내리고 있지 않다. 영업소에 대한 정의의 부재는 당사자들의 계약에 CISG를 적용할 것인지 여부를 결정함에 있어 여러 문제들을 야기시킨다. 또한 양 당사자는 CISG 적용을 배제할 수 있다. 그러나 CISG는 당사자들이 명시적으로 배제해야하는지 혹은 묵시적으로도 가능한지를 규정하지 않고 있다. 어떻게 유효하게 CISG를 배제할 수 있는지 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 미국법에 의거하여 CISG는 자기집행조약이다. 따라서 CISG의 규정들은 국제물품매매계약에 실체법으로써 직접 적용된다. 하지만 CISG의 정치적 그리고 경제적 중요성에도 불구하고 미국법원을 이를 간과하고 있다. 본 연구는 우리 기업들의 CISG 적극적인 활용을 위하여 미국법원에서 CISG를 어떻게 인식하고, 해석 및 적용하는지를 판례를 통하여 살펴보았다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• 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.