• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.217-234
• /
• 2007

동북아시아 국가들은 세계 무역 및 투자에 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있다. 동북아시아 역내 및 역외 국가들과의 경제교류는 앞으로 계속 늘어날 것으로 전망되며, 이로 인한 국제상사분쟁은 국제상사중재 등 ADR에 의해 해결될 수밖에 없을 것이다. 동북아시아에서 ADR 제도가 발전되기 위해서는 무엇보다도 한국의 대한상사중재원, 북한의 조선국제무역중재위원회, 중국의 중국국제경재무역중재위원회, 일본의 일본상사중재협회, 러시아의 러시아상공회의소 부설 국제상사중재법정, 카자흐스탄의 카자흐스탄국제중재기관, 몽골국가중재법정 상호간의 중재 업무 전반에 관한 협력제제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 국제상사중재에 관하여 동북아시아에 새로운 바람이 불고 있다. 경제자유구역 및 남북간 경제교류와 관련한 상사분쟁이 상사중재로 해결될 수 있는 법, 제도적 기반이 마련되었기 때문이다. 지난 해 한국에서는 대한상사중재원 주도하에 무역클레임 센서스가 실시되고 국제중재세미나가 개최되었으며 국제중재규칙이 제정(2007년도 2월 1일 시행 예정)된바 있다. 동북아시아 지역에서 국제상사중재제도가 발전되고 저변이 확대되기 위해서는 중재기관들 간의 협조체제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 한편 한국도 동북아시아의 중재허브로 성장하기 위해서는 국제금융, M&A 등 중재 영역을 확대하고 경제자유구역 및 남북상사중재 등과 같은 새로운 영역에 대처를 잘 해야 할 것이다. 아울러 정부 당국의 재정적 지원과 행정적 배려도 수반되어야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• 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.

• 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
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2012

China instituted arbitration law on September 1, 1995, after having legislated the law under the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, Chinese arbitration law has some problems related to the effectiveness of its arbitration agreement, unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law. Thus, parties in dispute who want to settle a dispute based on Chinese arbitration law as governing law have more to take into consideration because there could be serious problems related to the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, this paper attempted to analyze the classification of jurisdiction related to the authorization of effectiveness in arbitration agreement of arbitral organization and Chinese, verify the problems, and suggest the solutions. Moreover, the author tried to verify the problems in applying the law related to the authorization of effectiveness in Chinese arbitration agreements and suggest some improvements. This paper also suggests improvements and problems related to the selection of arbitral organizations among several conditions for effective arbitration agreement in Chinese arbitration law. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures related to arbitrations agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2019

As international trades between Korea and China increase, the number of civil disputes also increases. The civil dispute settlement system and the court system in China are distinctive from those of Korea. China has its own court systems which are characterized by the Chinese Communist System. Due to the influence of the decentralized local autonomy tradition, the case laws of each Province in China are not unified throughout the China. This is partly because only two instances are provided in China, and the parties cannot appeal to the Supreme People's Court of China unless there is a special reason. In Korea, three instances are provided and parties can appeal to the Supreme Court if a party so chooses. In addition, there are many differences in the judicial environment of China compared to Korea. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a Korean party and a Chinese party, arbitration is recommended rather than court litigation. This article examines the points to be considered for interim measures in China during arbitration. Where the seat of arbitration is Korea, interim measures cannot be taken by the order of the Chinese court in the middle of or before arbitration procedures. On the other hand, it is possible to take interim measures through the Chinese court in the middle of or before the arbitration procedure in China or Hong Kong. It also reviews the points to be noted in case of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China where permission from the upper Court is required to revoke or to deny the recognition or enforcement of a foreign-related or foreign arbitration award.