• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

국제상사중재는 <국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약>을 적용하는 중요한 영역이고 본 협약이 국제 통일법적인 역할을 발휘하는데 중요한 지원을 제공하고 있습니다. 중국국제 경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)는 협약을 가장 많이 적용하여 중재사건을 해결하는 중재위원회이다. 중재재판소는 체약국 법원과 마찬가지로 협약내용을 정확하게 이해하고 정확하게 적용함으로써 사건재판의 질을 제고하고 판결의 공신력을 강화한다. 하지만 중재재판소의 민간성과 독립성으로 인하여 재판소가 협약을 적용하는 법률기초는 소재국 국내 중재법, 중재절차 및 국제중재관례이고, 소재국이 협약을 이행함에 있어서의 국제조약의무가 아니다. 협약과 중국 계약법은 CIETAC 중재재판소가 주요하게 적용하는 법률이다. 중국 계약법 규정에는 협약 제75조, 76조의 내용에 해당하는 차액배상제도가 존재하지 않기 때문에, 판사와 중재재판소는 손해배상금을 확정함에 있어서 보다 많은 자유재량권을 가지므로 협약을 적용하는 것과 중국 계약법을 적용하는 것은 당사자에게 서로 다른 영향을 일으킨다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.197-211
• /
• 2005

본 논문에서는 상거래과정에서 발생하는 분쟁해결을 위하여 적용가능한 ODR시스템의 특성과 선진국의 ODR의 시험 운영사례를 통하여 이에 따른 문제점을 분석하였다. 또한 국제상거래의 분쟁해결수단으로 일반화되고 있는 중재에 대하여 온라인중재의 도입에 따른 법적인 문제를 검토하고, 이러한 분석 검토결과를 토대로 ODR의 발전방안을 제시하였다. ODR은 신속성, 비용의 경제성, 해결방법의 개선 등의 장점으로 인하여 온라인에서 발생한 분쟁뿐만 아니라 오프라인에서 발생한 분쟁까지도 그 영역이 확대되어 가고 있으며, 앞으로 전자정부에서도 이를 채택하게 됨에 따라 급격히 발전할 것으로 생각된다. 최근의 상거래분쟁이 복잡하고 전문성이 요구되며, 신속한 해결을 지향하고 있으므로 종래 ADR제도의 장점과 정보 통신적 요소를 가미한 새로운 ODR제도를 도입 추진하는 것이 무엇보다도 중요하다고 할 수 있으며, 이를 위하여 ODR제도의 정통성과 실효성을 확보할 필요가 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2010

Traditionally, finality has been regarded as one of virtues of arbitration. However in many cases absence of appeal process in arbitration is also a factor deterring people from choosing arbitration. Even though unsatisfied party may resort to a court for annulment of an award, it is allowed only when there are procedural defects. When there are substantive defects in matters of fact or matters of law, it is not easy or almost impossible to bring the case on the table again. The introduction of arbitration appeal process has been discussed in international arbitration fora, and some countries have already been adopting appeal process. Realizing this trend, it is time for us to consider adopting similar appeal process. Arbitration being based on the party autonomy, there's no good reason to prohibit appeal when the parties agree to do so. Arbitration appeal should be allowed within arbitration system itself, rather than resorting to a court, so that many virtues of arbitration can be maintained in the appeal. In designing an arbitration appeal system, following measures should be considered: minimum amount in dispute to trigger the right of appeal should be set in order to reduce the volume of appeal; losing appellant should be responsible for the legal cost of his opponent in order to deter non-meritorious appeals; time limits on initial appeal application and subsequent briefs should be set in order to accelerate appeal process; and, appeal tribunals should be composed of more experienced arbitrators in order to provide more accurate award. If we are equipped with a well designed appeal process within arbitration system, Korea will be able to emerge as an attractive international arbitration forum.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.67-89
• /
• 2016

An ADR arbitration system has a necessary value in the sports industry for settlement of disputes. Sports disputes should be resolved independently by enacting internal regulations within the basic principles of national law rather than treated as a civil action. If the dispute is not fair and transparent, it may cause distrust. Because an arbitration system has values such as speed, flexibility of economic decisions, professionalism of arbitrator and confidentiality of arbitration-related information, the efficiency of the arbitration system for conflict resolution has emerged recently. We have to assign sports experts to reactivate sports arbitration commission committees which existed from 2006 to 2009 in Korea. Many countries, such as the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, and Japan, which attain advancement of sports and the International Court of Arbitration establish and run their own sports arbitration agencies. However, Korea disbanded its sports arbitration commission committee for political and economic reasons. In 2012, after their disbanding, athlete Kim Yeon-kyoung came into conflict with Heungkuk Life over terms of free agent acquisition and international transfer certification. Finally they were able to settle those political conflicts. However if there had been related laws in Korea, they could have resolved those problems easily without international disputes. Practically, it would have been almost impossible for Kim Yeon-kyoung to win the dispute. But her problem became an issue after the London Olympics, so she could win. Although it is well for her to take an active role on the international stage, it left much to be desired on account of the intervention of political circles in order to resolve the conflict. If the sports arbitration commission committee in Korea had still been active, it could have come to a peaceful settlement domestically. Therefore we have to reestablish a Korean sports arbitration committee centered around experts of sports law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.87-105
• /
• 2015

Intellectual property law is slowly fighting to keep pace with the rapid growth of the fashion industry. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, even in the US and other top fashion nations, forcing designers and fashion companies to rely on their trademarks to protect their work. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems as witnessed in a recent Christian Louboutin case, leading the parties to resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution(ODR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, are increasingly emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry (CFDA in the US case) should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members, both fashion designers and corporations alike, can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem In particular, for the US fashion industry, the ongoing Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act(IDPPPA) anti-counterfeit legislation could have caused a chilling effect against innovation. New designers with no name and less resources who could normally flourish producing inspired-by designs may find themselves subject to copyright infringement legislation since the IDPPPA may expand the protection of established designers and brands with more resources. This fear and its implication could be solved by the fashion industry itself since fashion experts know best how to handle these fast-paced issues arising in the field. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to protecting innovation within fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an ADR process. This can mitigate the uncertainty created by the IDPPPA or any other legislation from elsewhere, which could result in a shying away from experimentation with inspired-by designs.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.113-138
• /
• 2020

Using the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system to resolve disputes, rather than going through lawsuits, is used widely all across the world. The mediation system in the ADR has many advantages. Mediation is an ancient Chinese original dispute settlement system. The Chinese government tries to insure mediation to settle the disputes in business activities. There has been a stark increase in disputes following economic development and, in order to solve this, the Supreme People's Court has placed mediation as a priority in civil suits. In particular, China intends to powerfully move forward by building a "Moderately Prosperous Society" and to eradicate poverty as this year's economic and social development goal. Solving disputes through mediation would, above all else, be effective and be appropriate to the national development's goals. China should also provide policies that are fair and do not damage equality while it operates the mediation system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2013

This article focuses on integrating institutional mediation systems, especially the analysis of the leading ADR operation. Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party, a mediator, facilitates the resolution of a dispute by promoting voluntary agreements by the parties to the dispute. A mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, focuses the parties on their interests, and seeks agreement. These standards give meaning to this definition of mediation. Standard mediation clauses are construed as broadly as possible, and mediation is compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that the mediation process is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Performing the conflicts check early in the process helps in eliminating any awkwardness or delays caused by making disclosures after mediation commences. Mediator impartiality is central to the mediation process. A mediator should mediate only those matters in which she or he can remain impartial and evenhanded. If at any time the mediator is unable to conduct the process in an impartial manner, the mediator is obligated to withdraw.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This article examines the Annulment Mechanism of arbitral awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The primary feature in the ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration regarding the review of awards involves the unified nature of the ICSID system, as compared to the scattered and multi-layered system of review existing under arbitration rules, national legislation, and international convention. This unity can be perceived at different levels. The ICSID annulment mechanism entails only a set of rules; thus, only one set of application standards of review will be implemented, as opposed to sometimes conflicting layers of application rules, laws, and convention, as in the case of non-ICSID arbitration. However, some of the recent annulment decisions have raised serious questions about the breadth of annulment in practice, as opposed to its original design. Nonetheless, implementing a new system under the ICSID awards to be reviewed by an appellate court appears to create more problems than it solves. The potential impact of introducing that mechanism could result in a longer and more complex proceeding, with uncertain benefits.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제16권9호
• /
• pp.386-395
• /
• 2016

이 연구는 부모의 미디어 중재유형이 청소년의 방송프로그램 등급제 실효성 인식에 미치는 영향을 파악하기 위해 실시되었다. 이를 위해 중학생 520명을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시했다. 등급제 실효성은 등급제가 어린이와 청소년을 유해한 콘텐츠로부터 잘 보호한다는 믿음과 반드시 필요한 제도라는 믿음을 의미한다. 분석결과, 중학생들이 부모의 미디어 중재가 '자율적/지지적 제한'이라고 인식할수록 등급제의 실효성이 크다고 인식하지만, '통제적 중재'라고 인식할수록 등급제는 실효성이 없는 제도라는 인식이 강하다는 점을 발견했다. 이와 함께, 폭력적 미디어에 많이 노출되는 중학생일수록 등급제는 실효성이 없다고 생각하는 경향이 강하게 나타났다. 이 결과는 연령에 맞지 않는 부적절한 콘텐츠를 제한하는 이유에 대해 자녀와 대화를 나누되 부모가 명확한 논리를 제시하는 중재 유형이 등급제의 실효성을 강화하는데 효과적일 수 있다는 점을 의미한다.