• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.193-208
• /
• 2018

"중재제도를 보완하고 중재의 공신력을 향상하며" 국제상사중재의 현대화 및 국제화를 강화하는 것은 새로운 시기에서 중국 중재사업의 발전방향이자 ""일대일로" 국제상사분쟁 해결시스템 및 기관의 설립에 관한 의견"의 필연적 요구이다. 다원적 분쟁해결시스템의 중요한 구성부분으로서, 국제상사중재는 독보적인 편의성, 종국성, 전문성 및 결과집행의 용이성 등 여러 장점으로 인해 상사거래에서 이를 선택하는 상사주체들이 점점 많아지고 있다. 유효한 중재합의는 중재절차 개시의 전제이지만 국제상사중재안건 중에서 서로 다른 국가 또는 지역의 분쟁주체들은 종종 각기 다른 국적으로 인하여 중재안건의 법률적용이 다르게 됨에 따라 법률효과가 크게 달라지는 경우를 직면하게 된다. 이런 경우, 중재분쟁의 효과적인 해결은 보증하기 어렵다. 본 논고는 중재합의의 효력문제를 연구대상으로 하고 중국 국제상사중재합의의 법률적용문제에서 출발하여 중국 국제상사중재합의와 관련한 법률규정과 사법실무를 결합하여 지금 중국 국제상사중재합의의 효력에 대한 인정에서 존재하고 있는 문제점들을 분석하고 상응한 건의를 제기함으로서 중국 중재법의 개정과 보완에 합리적이고 가능한 방향을 제시하고자 한다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.135-157
• /
• 2016

CISG is the most important international convention in the field of international sale of goods. Many arbitration organizations often invoke this convention when settling disputes between the parties concerned. China has been one of the contracting states since the effective date of CISG, and has settled many cases with it. This article aims at analyzing the legal status of CISG in China and the methods with which Chinese arbitration organizations apply CISG. Also, it looks into the existing problems, based on which it provides suggestions for improvement.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this article by looking into the international commercial arbitration system of China is to provide solutions regarding commercial disputes that may occur in trade between China and Korea. For the research, literature review based on the Chinese Arbitration Law and CIETAC Arbitration Rules was employed. According to the research, the arbitration system of China applies partially differentiated legislation between domestic and international arbitration rules, unaccepting any ad-hoc arbitration, a limitation to the party autonomy, a deficiency of independence given to the arbitral institution, the participation of jurisdiction on arbitration is severe and it brings hardships in the execution of arbitral award. Beside these, in China's arbitral institution the jurisdiction directly progresses adjustments during the arbitration procedure and the following result is written as the award. Thus, the research is expected to provide legal and practical solutions to the commercial dispute with Chinese companies by looking into the main contents of legislations of the international commercial arbitration system in China.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2014

With the development of Chinese commercial arbitration, there have been a large number of cases regarding the parties raised objection to the jurisdiction in arbitration and judicial practice. The argument relating to dealing with the subject matter, time limitation, identified subject of arbitration objection to the jurisdiction as well as the inadequate of Chinese Arbitration Law and relevant judicial interpretations has caused adverse impact on the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. This paper firstly look ar the overview of the arbitration jurisdiction objection, mainly on the arbitration jurisdiction objection determination and what is arbitration jurisdiction objection. The raise and abandonment of the arbitration objection to jurisdiction then will be analyzed in terms of subject, form, time and the legal consequences of giving up. The third part illustrates the handling of arbitration jurisdiction objection, main body, practices, procedures and whether the arbitration objection to jurisdiction is established. And the last part discuss how the condition of effectiveness on the arbitral agreement applies to through Chinese cases. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures relates to arbitration agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese partner.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2006

This writing is for the purpose of investigating the specific character and problem point of China arbitration system which has near 90 years history and overviewing the drift of system improvement which happens recently. The arbitration system of China which traditionally does not acknowledge ad hoc arbitration, unlike most of the other nations that employ The UNCITRAL model law and make it their own legislation, is restrictive to the parties concerned principle of private autonomy considerably. Also the independence of arbitration is delicate, because of a civil characteristic weakness of the arbitral institutions and the intervention of the courts on the arbitration procedure and award. The dual system of domestic and international arbitration which maintains after enforcement of 1994 arbitration law is often to be a primary factor interrupting the development of Chinese arbitration system and making it vulnerable to challenges. The system improvement demand of the recent time reflects this point and makes the arbitration system of China to a international standard rather than now, so it is a desirable direction for China to be as the member of the world economy to be globalization.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).