• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 지난 10월 26일 및 27일 양일간에 걸쳐 서울의 Grand Intercontinental Hotel에서 개최된 국제중재학술대회 ICC/KCAB/KOCIA Conference에서 발표된 것으로 외국 변호사들의 이해를 돕기 위해 우리나라 중재법의 주요 내용을 설명하되, 특히 뉴욕협약과 국제상사중재에 관한 유엔모범법과 차이가 있는 부분을 주로 설명하였다. 이 논문은 우리나라 중재법이 규율하는 분야 중에서 그 적용범위, 중재적격, 통지의 서면성, 중재합의의 형식, 중간구제조치의 집행, 중재의 준거법 및 중재인의 선정 등에 관하여 설명하였다. 또한 이 논문은 우리나라가 일본, 중국 및 우리나라를 포함하는 동북아무역과 관련한 분쟁에서 중재의 중심지가 되어야 할 것을 역설하고, 이를 위해서 우리나라 유일의 중재기관인 대한상사중재원이 중재인 및 사무국 분야에서 개선이 필요함을 주장하였다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.45-65
• /
• 2009

China and Taiwan had opened complete Three Linkages era December 2008, in the 59 years. The improvement of two countries' relationship is expecting to spur two countries more on the economy exchange. However the increasement of investment and trade between two countries will increase disputes to ratio. In order to settle the disputes related to economy between two countries, the most favorite way is to use arbitral system which involve less public power. After China and Taiwan recognized this point, they announced provisions which allow to solve controversies through the arbitration between parties of two countries since 1980, and prepared legal basis for dispute settlement between two countries. However, because China and Taiwan do not authorize each party as a country, the execution application made by each party based on New York Convention related to foreign arbitral awards cannot be approved. Because of these kind of reasons China and Taiwan should agree in order to guarantee mutual execution of arbitral awards which is an ultimate purpose of arbitration. However because of the political situation of two countries there are provisions related to execution for arbitral awards decided by each party. In this paper, I separated the provision related to mutual execution for arbitral awards of each party of China and Taiwan, examined exposed problems, and suggested ways to improve. It can support some of assistance and implication to establish basis of arbitral system between South Korea and North Korea and to suggest direction to derive through this kind of study.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2011

The agreement to arbitrate is a central feature of commercial arbitration and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement is recognised as a reason why any arbitral award may not be recognized as binding by the courts or may be set aside. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement. Most arbitration laws only require an arbitration agreement to be "in writing". But the arbitration law of the China require an arbitration agreement shall contain the following: 1. The expression of application for arbitration. 2. Matters for arbitration. 3. The arbitration commission chosen. And China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement are somewhat different from the other nations.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.315-350
• /
• 2010

The rapid growth of Korea-China trade that was since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992, led China to surpass the United States and Japan to become Korea's largest trading partner in 2009. "The largest trade" also means "the most disputes", so it is essential to study on dispute settlement and enforcement system of the two. Therefore, in order to make the traders correctly understand and use the arbitration as a dispute settlement method in both China and Korea, this article makes a comparative study on arbitration system between the two countries. And finally, it analyzes the enforcement situation of arbitral award in China, then provides the author's personal recommendations as a countermeasure against the poor enforcement system in China.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2007

The law of Jus Rerem of China enacted on March 16, 2007 came into force from October 1st, 2007. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem. This means that all three nations of Northeast Asia have formally and substantially similar legal terms and conceptions. Therefore, they will be reciprocally influenced on the legal matters related Jus Rerem. In the year 1949 when China, as a communist country, was originally established without the private ownership system, the law of Jus Rerem was not introduced. Since the reform and the open-economy policy in the year 1978 came into force, it has become important that newly acknowledged private property has been stipulated by the law of Jus Rerem. Arbitration Law of China is enacted on August 31th, 1994 and came into force from September 1st, 1995. It is a basic law which rules Chinese arbitration system. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem, "conformed with the 21st century", by solving a lot of issues in dispute. A socialistic idea, a traditional Chinese idea and realistic conditions of the market economy were integrated into the law of Jus Rerem. It would have a very good effect on the growth and prosperity of China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan have a singular political relationship. This distinctive relationship creates a unique impact on the nationality of the arbitral awards among the said countries. Each of these regions does not adopt the arbitral award of the other party as either a foreign arbitration award or a domestic arbitration award, but separately adopts the arbitral award in different jurisdictions within the same country. Therefore, in order to approve and enforce their arbitral awards in other areas, they have no choice to apply special laws or the conventions concluded between them, neither the New York Convention nor the individual arbitration laws in those areas. Therefore, this paper reviewed the convention and self-established laws among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regarding the approval and execution of the other arbitral awards. In addition, the domestic laws in China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan are compared with the New York Convention to ascertain the criteria for distinguishing domestic and foreign arbitral awards. This study also compared and analyzed what criteria were established for the determination of the nationality of the arbitral awards in the domestic law or the convention concluded in pan China. Through the analysis of these contents, the characteristics and problems of criterion for the determination of nationality among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan were identified. Based on the results, this study examined the precautions Korean companies entering these regions should use in the arbitration system in these areas.

• 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.31 no.4
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2021

Chinese courts seem to be indifferent or ignorant of truncated arbitration. In other words, the Chinese court canceled the arbitration award made by truncated arbitration except for the Pingdingsan Case among the four arbitration cases related to the domestic arbitration award reviewed in this paper on the ground that it violated the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure. A Chinese court has canceled the arbitration award by judging only based on the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the legal process of the violation of the arbitration procedure not by determining whether the domestic arbitration award made by the truncated arbitration meets the conditions for the application of truncated arbitration as stipulated in the Arbitration Rules. Moreover, it seems that the Chinese court made a serious error in the application of the relevant regulations in the Pingdingsan Case, which ruled that the truncated arbitration did not violate the legal process. In this case, the Chinese court admitted truncated arbitration under logic process that it was not necessary to wait until the final hearing to apply the truncated arbitraion because one arbitrator was absent before the final hearing, but the truncated arbitrator had already formed his/her opinion before the absence. However, in the case of Marshall Investment Corporation, a case related to foreign arbitration, the Chinese court rejected the approval and execution of the truncated arbitration award by strictly applying the laws and timing of the truncated arbitration. Since only one case has been identified in the main text, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment, but considering these cases, it seems to be that the Chinese courts apply different standards to domestic and foreign arbitration awards to determine the legality of truncated arbitration.