• 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.

• 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.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.

• 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.18 no.3
• /
• pp.117-138
• /
• 2008

This study lies on building the International Standardization of China Arbitration System for improving a relationship of mutual trust and the safety trade between China and other worldwide countries, especially, South Korea as their one of the biggest trading partners through the comparative analysis of China and UNCITRAL Arbitration Law. In this analysis, the differences from China and UNCITRAL in arbitration law are like belows ; lack of arbitrator's international mind, the limitation of private property right, prohibition of Ad. hoc arbitration, arbitrator's biased nationalism, localism, and their short specialties. a deficiency of the objectiveness for arbitrator's election, a judgement rejection of claimants by using nonattendance and walkout, impossibility of prior and temporary property custody for execution of arbitration award. etc. For the improvement of the International Standardization of China Arbitration, this paper propose as follows: 1) Extension of private property right, reorganization of tax system, realization of open competition, exclusion of 'Sinocentrism', globalization of arbitration system 2) The abolition of old fashioned bureaucracy with approval for ad.hoc arbitration 3) An education for arbitrator's internationalization, specialty, and to promote legal knowledge 4) A settlement of the third country arbitrators' selection for reflecting interested party's decision by the court in a selection system of arbitration committee. 5) Institutionalization of arbitration judgment that prevent for claimant's avoidance by using a withdrawal and an intentional absent 6) A permission of the right of claimant's court custody directly before the begging of arbitration request for the prevention for destruction of evidence and property concealment 7) Grant of the arbitration tribunal's interim measures of protection for private property preservation to the third party, proof security, prevention from the loss that selling the corruptible goods 8) Improvement of arbitration's efficiency from the exclusion of the obstacles that are forgery, concealed evidence, and arbitrator's bribe taking Lastly, I hope that this study will serve to promote friendly economic relationship between China and South Korea and strive for international equilibrium through the achievement of China Arbitration's International Standardization. I will finish this paper with a firm belief that this will lead to more advanced studies.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.25-53
• /
• 2013

With the Korea-China FTA negotiations currently on the line, the importance of research into the FTA dispute settlement system has been increasing. In this paper, a comparison of Korea and China's FTA dispute settlement agreements concluded with ASEAN is contemplated, and implications for the future of the Korea-China FTA have been suggested. The FTA dispute settlement agreements with ASEAN concluded by both Korea and China provide perspectives on both sides. This agreement with ASEAN also provides a standard for the potential Korea-China FTA agreement. Specifically, the basis of these agreements with ASEAN is the same, although there are clear distinctions, described in a more detailed manner. A problem arises when there has been no discussion on dispute settlement agreements in Korea, especially of the agreement with ASEAN, whereas the opposite is true of the China counterpart. In this paper, Chinese academic FTA dispute settlement agreement studies have been also examined.

• 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.