• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.47-64
• /
• 2011

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) released online arbitration rules which apply the resolution of disputes over electronic commerce transactions, as well as other economic and trade disputes in which the parties agree to do. The evidence submitted by the parties may be electronic evidence created, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or magnetic means. Electronic evidence with a reliable electronic signature shall carry the same effect and probative force as a document with a hand-written signature. Where a case is tried in a tribunal, the arbitration tribunal shall conduct an online trial hearing using internet video conference or other electronic or computer communication means. Unless the parties have another agreement, summary procedure shall apply to cases where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 100,000 but no more than RMB 1 million, or where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 1 million and a party submits a written application for summary procedure after obtaining the written consent of the other party. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, fast-track procedure shall apply to cases where the amount in dispute does not exceed RMB 100,000 or where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 100,000 and a party submits a written application for fast-track procedure after obtaining the written consent of the other party. Notable features of the Online Rules are as follows; first, there is not detailed consideration for online arbitration. Second, communications between the parties and the tribunal are allowed only through the Secretariat. Third, elaborate provisions regarding the electronic submission and transmission of documents is provided for. Forth, various factors must be considered by the tribunal in deciding the evidence's reliability. Fifth, reasonable endeavours is levied on CIETAC to keep data communications secure and encrypted. Sixth, the tribunal has the right to investigate and collect relevant evidence. And finally different procedures are provided for in consideration of the various types of E-commerce.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.191-209
• /
• 2013

The amount of international trade conducted through Hong Kong (HK) is increasing, thus rendering the legal framework governing contracts of sale between Mainland China (China) and HK is of particular importance. The status of HK under the CISG is currently unclear, however. First, the CISG entered into force in China in 1988. This important development had no legal effect for HK though as China lacked the power to enter into international conventions for HK. Second, the "Letter of Notification" deposited to the Secretary-General of the UN referred a list of treaties to be applied to HK, taking effect from July 1, 1997. This list, however, made no mention of the CISG. Third, China made a reservation in Article 95 of the CISG. Pursuant to Article 1(1)(b) of the CISG, the CISG cannot apply to HK. As a result, the Chinese Arbitral Tribunal apply the Chinese law according to the closest connection principle with the contract. In this case, attention must be given to the different result to which the CISG is applied. Liability for damages pursuant to the Chinese Contract Law (CCL) is just the same as Article 74 CISG, but CCL does not govern the case with substitute transaction and without substitute transaction when the contract is avoided. Therefore, the contract should be governed by the CISG from a business perspective when a contract is concluded between China and HK; otherwise, a promisee could not be fully compensated for all loss incurred.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.29-53
• /
• 2013

Chinese ISD has been changed a lot since the reformation policy in 1978 and it is expected that China will present a changed attitude toward its advantage as its industrialization continues to advance. This study generally examines the ISD in BIT and also considers not only the attitude of China with regard to ISD but also the changes on the Chinese side. Moreover, this study determines the areas on which the Chinese government focuses. In order to conduct this study, the author attempts to classify the attitudes on ISD into chronical change and treaty powers based on the analysis of BIT. In addition, the paper examines the main contents of ISD in BIT which previously involved an agreement such as arbitral institution, arbitral range, counter-measures of local country, standard for admitting the nationality of corporate investors, and recognition and enforcement of arbitral award. Based on analysis, this paper mentions matters that require attention and caution in the Korea-China FTA as regards investment negotiation, and also suggests instructions for investors who may face dispute with the Chinese government.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2004

The problems on application for custody in CIETAC Arbitration Rule are examined in this paper. First, The issue of jurisdiction for application for custody is arisen from the expansion of material jurisdiction of CIETAC. Until 1998, CIETAC had a jurisdiction only for the cases involving foreigners, but now, it has a jurisdiction not only for the cases involving foreigners but also for domestic cases. In the cases of arbitrating disputes involving foreigners, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an intermediate people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. But in the cases of arbitrating domestic disputes, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an ground-level people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. Therefore, "People's court" in article 23 of CIETAC Arbitration Rule includes both intermediate people's court and ground-level people's court in its meaning. Second, in the cases that the party concerned submits arbitration to CIETAC, it is not permitted for the party to ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. But there still can be the urgent cases that interests of the party concerned are at stake, and legitimate rights and interests of the party concerned may be damaged beyond remedy, if no application for custody of property is filed immediately. In that cases, even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Therefore, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. When revising laws and rules, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. When arbitration tribunal decides it, the procedural provisions executing it must be provided. It is also required that China permit to apply preservation of evidence as well as custody of property before submitting an arbitration. It is also strongly recommended that China permit custody of property or preservation of evidence even in the cases that an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.121-151
• /
• 2006

As globalisation extends its effect and particularly following China's accession to the World Trade Organization(WTO) in 2001, ever greater numbers of international transactions will feature a Chinese party. China has certainly made efforts in recent years to rectify law problem. While conducting business in China, foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals and companies. As foreign businesses invest in the extraordinary market opportunities in China, international arbitration has also become the preferred method for handling disputes with Chinese partners or with other foreign corporation over operations in China. The new Arbitration Rules of the International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) came into force on 1 May 2005. The new rules represent a major overhaul of CIETAC arbitration procedures and are sure to enhance CIETAC's position as a leading player in the resolution of China-foreign business disputes. The changes are significant for all companies doing business in China. So, this article investigated some amendments on the basis of 2000 Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.87-122
• /
• 1998

This study reports on the Arbitration system in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration commission (CIETAC) and the International Arbitration problems of Korea and China. The Chines laws including Arbitration laws are influenced by the civil Code system Particulary the German system. China is contracting state of the U N Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958 New York Convention), which became effective in the China April 22, 1987. International Commercial Arbitration is popular in China. CIETAC is the sole International Commercial Arbitration body in China. CIETAC has two sub-commissions, on is shen zhem S E Z and the other in shanghai. The CIETAC rules, are similar to the rules in effect in Countries using a civil Code system. Both an agreement to submit an existing dispute to Arbitration and an Arbitration clause in a contract relating to future disputes are recognizeal as valiad Arbitration agreements. CIETAC has the power to make a decision on disputes concering the validity of the Arbitration agreements, or jurisdiction over a specicific case.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.183-197
• /
• 2014

1. This study focuses on recent developments of trade transaction between Korea and China. The volume of trade is most rapidly increasing. There have been many items considered to ensure the proper, impartial, and rapid settlement of disputes in private laws by international arbitration. The article contains recent tendencies and proceedings of cases including place of arbitration, language, and so on. 2. The contract made between parties has led to some interpretational, legal questions. Interpretational questions rise mainly from differences of legal systems and legal questions on applying law. The characteristic features of the contract have different meanings, so some articles of the contract can be construed unlawful as a result. 3. As regards the Arbitration Act of Korea, Article 10, the Arbitration Agreement and Interim Measures by Court stipulate the following: A party to an arbitration agreement may request from a court art interim a measure of protection before or during arbitral proceedings. This article examines the application of Article 10 of the Arbitration Act of Korea.