• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

국제상사중재를 다루는 중재판정부의 중재인은 당사자들 간의 유효한 합의를 통하여 구속력 있는 중재판정을 행사할 권한을 가진다. 중재계약에 다른 정함이 없는 한 중재인의 판정권에 대한 결정은 중재인 자신이 내린다. 중재인은 중재합의에 의하여 그 권한이 부여된 사건에 대해서만 권한을 갖게 되나, 명시적으로 그 권한에 따라야 하는 사건 외에 당해 사건을 해결하기 위하여 처리하지 않으면 안 될 모든 문제, 즉 당해 사건과 절단될 수 없는 형태로 연계되어 있는 문제 또는 그 부차적인 조건의 문제를 해결하여야 하는 책임을 지게 된다. 중재판정부는 그 자율적인 권한범위를 규율하는 권한을 가지며, 그 권한 속에는 중재합의의 존부 또는 효력에 관한 것도 포함된다. 중재인의 판정권에 이의가 있는 당사자는 법원에 중재계약의 부존재 무효 확인을 청구할 수 있고, 중재판정이 이미 내려진 경우에는 중재판정취소의 소를 제기하거나, 집행판결에서 이의를 제기할 수 있다. 우리 중재법의 입장에서 국제중재판정의 판정기준에 대해 는 중재판정부는 당사자들이 지정한 법에 따라 중재판정을 내려야 하며, 특정 국가의 법 또는 법체계가 지정된 경우에 달리 명시되지 아니하는 한 그 국가의 국제사법이 아닌 분쟁의 실체법을 지정한 것으로 보고 있다. 국제중재의 법적 안정성, 예측가능성의 관점에서 실정법을 그 판단의 규준으로 삼는다. 한국의 국제중재의 특성은 국제성 중립성, 보편성을 보장받는 점이다. 중재인 구성원은 세계 각국의 국적을 가진 전문 중재인들이 참가하고 있다. 중재절차에 있어서도 중재인은 실체법이나 절차법, 또는 법률의 상충에 관계없이 어느 특정법률을 적용하도록 강요받지 않고 각각의 경우에 가장 적합한 법률에 따르며 중재판정부의 진행절차는 국제중재규칙에 의해 규율된다.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the effect of class arbitration under voyage charter with Asbatankvoy form. This study analyses the Stolt-Nielsen case as a data. In this case, One Class Rule requires an arbitrator to determine whether an arbitration clause permits class arbitration. The parties selected an arbitration panel, designated New York City as the arbitration site, and stipulated that their arbitration clause was silent on the class arbitration issue. The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award. But the Second Circuit reversed, holding that because petitioners had cited no authority applying a maritime rule of customs and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators' decision was not in manifest disregard of maritime law; and that the arbitrators had not manifestly disregarded New York law, which had not established a rule against class arbitration. However, the Supreme Court held, imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

International arbitration is the important field of applying CISG and the backbone of uniform law developed by CISG. Now CIETAC tribunals like courts of contracting states apply CISG precisely, which is beneficial to improving the quality and the credit of arbitral cases. Arbitration has the characters of independence and the non-government. the legal foundation of arbitral tribunal's applying CISG are the national arbitral law, the applicable arbitral procedures and usages of arbitration, not for performing international obligations under the CISG. CIETAC mainly use China Contract Law and CISG over the cases of sale of goods. Because of no provisions on recovery of differential price loss (equal to article 75 and 76 of CISG) Chinese tribunals have more discretion in determining the sum of damages under the China Contract Law. Applying China Contract Law may not beneficial to aggrieved party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.23-49
• /
• 2023

An ICSID award on Lone Star case has been rendered finally on August 31st, 2022 after almost ten years since the Lone Star Funds submitted the request for arbitration against the Republic of Korea in 2012. The Lone Star case is the first investor-state dispute settlement(ISDS) case brought against Korea, and this case, also known as "eat and run" case, has given rise to heated debates for years. Moreover, as the ICSID tribunal has ordered Korea to pay the Lone Star Funds the sum of USD 216.5 million plus interest in the award, this case has become once again the subject of controversy. Any arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in dispute have not been disclosed until recently, however, as the memorials and the award are now open to the public, it has become possible to realize the assertions of each party and the decisions of the tribunal in detail. Therefore, this paper aims at analyzing the main issues of the Lone Star case with a focus on the ICSID award. By examining the substantive and procedural issues of the case one after the other, it might be able to understand the whole picture of the case and prepare for the remaining procedures of this case and other upcoming cases as well.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2018

Due to the increasing number of foreign investments made by state-owned enterprises, there has been a growth in the number of investment arbitration claims submitted by them. However, international investment treaties including the ICSID Convention are intended to apply to investor-state disputes and according to Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the claimant has to be "a national of another Contracting State." This raises the question of whether state-owned companies can be considered as "nationals of another Contracting State" or private investors. This issue has been discussed in the ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction in BUCG v. Yemen which has been released in 2017. Since there would be more claims related to the standing of state-owned enterprises as claimants, it is required to understand whether state-owned enterprises could be permitted access to the ICSID under the ICSID Convention Article 25. Moreover, the ICSID cases addressing the jurisdictional issues including BUCG v. Yemen has to be closely analyzed. In particular, as the Broches test was applied in order to decide the standing of state-owned companies, it is necessary to examine how the Broches criteria has been interpreted and adopted in the ICSID cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.109-129
• /
• 2011

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international sports has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because the form of sports dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem. The Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) as the settlement of sports dispute is regarded as the one of effective dispute resolution method and merits notice. The Korean Sports Arbitration Committee has been established for dispute resolution between athletes and the clubs or alike. Now, We must review and complements the rules of the Korean Sports Arbitration Committee in order to be a representative system of domestic sports dispute arbitration that settle the sports dispute practically and efficiently.

• Proceedings of KHEA Conference
• /
• 2004.04a
• /
• pp.122-122
• /
• 2004

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

In Count case, the owners claimed from the charterers the amount of their loss resulting from the delay to the Count caused by the blockage of the channel due to stranding of the Pongola on the ground that this loss resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions. The Claim was referred to arbitration and dealt with on written submission. In a reasoned award, the arbitrators upheld the owners' claim. The charterers seek an order reversing the award or remitting it to the arbitrators for further consideration : (1) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port of Beira was unsafe and that in consequence the charterers were liable to the owners in damages for detention. (2) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port was unsafe in the abstract by reference to the fact that two other vessels had grounded there. (3) Having held that the Count was delayed for a little over four days by the fact that, after the charterers had nominated the port, the Pongola had grounded in the access channel, the tribunal should have held that the port was not prospectively unsafe. On the that the grounding the Pongola was caused by the characteristics which made the port an unsafe port to nominate for the Count. The court was held that it was not an independent event which broke the chain of causation between the breach of contract and the owner's loss. For those reasons, the court was upheld the arbitrator's award.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.125-139
• /
• 2007

최근 한국과 미국 법원에서는 조정제도를 자주 이용하고 있다. 조정제도를 이용함으로써 법원은 사건부담을 줄일 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 소송지연을 막고 비용을 절감할 수 있다. 그러나 조정제도의 장점을 극대화하기 위해서는 일반 조정제도의 기본원칙인 당사자 원칙을 최대한 반영하고 법원의 개입은 제한하여야 할 필요가 있다. 이점에 있어 미국과 한국의 법원내 조정제도에 비교해볼 때, 전자가 법원의 개입은 필요한 최소한에 그치고 조정인과 분쟁당사자간의 당사자자치를 최대한 보장하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 이 글은 한국과 미국의 법원내 조정제도를 비교 분석하여 효과적인 법원내 조정제도를 정착시키기 위하여 개선해야 한 점을 제시하고자한다. 한국과 미국의 법원내 조정제도의 근본적인 차이는 조정절차진행에서 법원의 역할과 관련되어 있다. 특히 미국법원은 분쟁 당사자들 스스로 분쟁해결을 할 수 있도록 돕는 역할에 주력하는 반면, 한국법원은 조정절차 전 과정에서 분쟁해결에 적극 개입한다. 보다 공정하고 효율적인 민사조정절차를 위해서는 관련법의 정비뿐만 아니라 조정인의 교육과 전문성을 강화하기 위한 제도적 장치를 마련할 필요가 있다.