• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

As China has quickly emerged as a global economic power, the total number of international commercial disputes arbitrated by Chinese arbitral institutions has increased dramatically. Along with this, the annulment procedure of arbitral awards in China have been newly brought to the fore. In accordance with the historical background and the demand of the times, the Chinese annulment procedure of arbitral awards reveals distinctive Chinese features. Although it was enacted in the face ofof an unwarranted prejudice against the dispute settlement system by arbitration as well as a deep mistrust of domestic arbitral institutions, the annulment procedure of arbitral awards showed a certain degree of justification and rationality in its initial stages of legislation. However, it is also the case that it has not adapted well to new domestic or foreign arbitration circumstances in the last twenty years. At present, there is a keen interest in revisions to and debates on arbitration law of China. It is necessary to take an active part in the amendment discussion and process of arbitration law. Moreover, we need to reform the annulment procedure of arbitral awards in order to meet the global trend of arbitration law.

• 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.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.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.

• 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.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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

The study attempts to verify the case related to the notice of payment refusal by issuing bank regarding discrepancy in transport document under L/C(Letter of Credit) transaction. Considering the high portion of trade between Korea and China, Korean companies and banks in L/C transaction should be careful about many unpredictable situations. The case of this study is that Chinese seller(beneficiary) initiated a civil suit against Industrial Bank of Korea to Chinese court and Chinese courts in the first and second trials judged that the notice of payment refusal by Industrial bank of Korea doesn't satisfy Article 16, (c) (ii) (iii) in UCP 600. However, Industrial Bank of Korea implements the judgement even though the judgement is highly biased to Chinese seller. Considering the judgement by Chinese courts, the study suggests some countermeasures to Korean companies and banks which opened L/C. First, the issuing bank should describe the contents of discrepancy specifically based on Article 16, (c) in UCP 600. Second, it is necessary to insert a clause regarding governing law in the L/C contract like sales contract. Third, considering the biased judgement by Chinese court and difficulty in execution of foreign judgement in China, it is recommended to using arbitration as a method of dispute resolution such as ICLOCA and DOCDEX Rules which are international system operated by international instruments because it has legal effects to parties in L/C contracts if the issuing bank inserts arbitration clause in L/C.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2009

Nowadays, Alternative Dispute Resolution in terms of reconciliation, arbitration, and mediation is in the spotlight as a try to overcome the limits of a lawsuit as well as the judicial reform. Since many articles have studied ADR in America, Germany, Japan and the like which developed the system in advance, this article compares ADR in major Asian countries including China, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, India, and Vietnam etc. introducing ADR organizations as well. On the matter of vigorous trade and investment between Asian countries currently, it seems inevitable not to have consequential disputes through international exchange. Thus it will be very useful to know the law to resolve the conflict between the countries involved. This article is written to help to resolve the disputes in Asian countries and provide research materials to develop ADR in Korea by comparing the ones in major Asian countries. In addition, the comparative study of ADR in Asian countries should be continued to find the model which best fits in Asia as well as to nurture talent.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.167-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to find out some countermeasure to Korean companies entered Chinese market through analyzing an arbitration case resolved by CIETAC applied of Chinese Commission Agency Law and CISG. China create legal relationship between the principal and the third party under Chinese Consignment Contract Law. Korean companies so make sure whether this Contract is included when they conclude international commercial contract. If yes, they have to prove their recognition for the relationship between the principal and the commission agent when needed. If the parties agreed an additional period of time of delivery and the seller do not deliver the goods within this period, this breach might be regarded as fundamental nature and the buyer could declare the contract avoided. In addition, late delivery might also be regarded as fundamental breach when market price is fluctuated. It is understandable that attorney's fees is recoverable one, but it is not understandable that arbitrator's extra expenses such as travel and accommodation expenses is not recoverable with the reason that arbitrator comes outside of the country.