• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.201-216
• /
• 2018

After the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union's Common Commercial Policy now belongs to the exclusive competence area of the EU, including the foreign direct investment (FDI) policy. Regarding the bilateral investment protection treaties (BITs) between the EU Member States, the European Commission is of the view that such BITs should be discarded. On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in the Achmea BV v. Slovakia case that a BIT between the EU Member States, as well as arbitral awards based on that BIT, is not subject to request for preliminary rulings under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and thus they are not compatible with the EU law. However, the judgment did not silence the controversy. Instead, many people questioned the legal reasoning and the legitimacy of judgment, and therefore the problem is still ongoing.

• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.443-452
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to identify the factors affecting perceived safety climate and the level of incident reporting attitude, incident reporting knowledge and safety climate. The data were collected by structured questionnaires from 240 nurses and were analyzed with descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Scheffe test, Pearson's correlation coefficients and multiple regression. The level of incident reporting attitude and incident reporting knowledge was 3.34 and 3.05. The level of safety climate was 3.25. Incident reporting knowledge and safety climate have a significant positive association with incident reporting attitude(r=.33, p<.001; r=.38, p<.001). Incident reporting knowledge was positively associated with safety climate(r=.32, p<.001). Factors influencing safety climate were incident reporting knowledge, belief in improvement and reporting intention which explained 24.7% of the variance(F=12.22, p<.001). The findings indicate that to improve incident reporting knowledge with positive attitude and safety climate should be considered as patient safety strategy and should endeavour to develop interventions for safety.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.93-118
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 미국 케이스에 관한 연구입니다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국의 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 추후 연구와 가까운 장래에 비교연구를 위해서 지적재산에 관련된 케이스들에 관하여 미국의 연구들을 논하는데 있습니다. 본 연구에서 지적재산 관련 사건들의 중재에 관한 미국케이스들을 채택하였습니다. 그리고 본 연구의 목적 달성과 효과적인 연구를 성취하기 위해 그 케이스들을 인용하였습니다. 그러므로, 본 연구의 구성은 특히, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재, 특허분쟁의 중재, 저작권분쟁의 중재를 위하여 지적재산분야와 중재 분야에 있는 케이스로 이루어져 있습니다. 중재조항은 분쟁에 관해 누가 결정할 것인가 그리고 분쟁이 중재 가능한가 아닌가에 관하여 법원에서 중재적격 문제들을 분석할때에 계약 원칙을 적용하게 됩니다. 일반적으로, 중재적격의 의문은 사법적 분야의 질문에 관한 것 입니다. 그러나, 중재조항이 분명하고, 명백하고, 오해없는 문구들인 곳에서 법원은 연방 중재법이 중재조항과 중재범위를 포함하고 있기 때문에 중재를 존중합니다. 그러므로, 저런 경우에 중재인은 중재적격을 판단 할 수 있습니다. 그러나, 미국에서 법원은 어떤 케이스들은 ICC 룰로 구속되어지고 그리고 다른 케이스들은 AAA 룰로 구속 되어지는 것을 발견했습니다. 어떤 룰이던지 간에 중재조항은 주의깊게 만들어야만 하고 그리고 분명하고 명백한 구문을 제공하여야만 한다는 것을 법원에 의해 요구되어지고 있습니다. 본 연구에서 발견한 점들은, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 중재합의의 범위가 광범위 또는 제한적일지라도 양 당사자의 중재조항을 위해 계약에서 분명하고 명확한 문구를 만드는 것이 중요합니다. 이것은 우리에게 계약의 원칙이 분쟁에서 적용 되어지고 있다는 것을 보여 주고 있습니다. 그래서, 중재조항의 조문은 법원이나 중재인에게 논쟁 또는 오역이 없게 확실하고 분명하게 명시하여야 합니다. 특허분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 대부분 법원들은 케이스들을 분석할때에 광범위한 중재조항에 따라오고 있습니다. 중재적격 결정의 테스트로서 계약에서 "arising under" or "relating to" 구절은 ADR을 위해 그리고 분쟁의 예방을 위해 중재가 광범위한 문구를 포함하고 있는가 아닌가를 보는데 중요합니다. 더구나, 특허 또는 특허관련 권리들 하에서, 중재는 연방중재법에 의해 지배되기 때문에 계약은 특허 유효성 또는 침해 문제들이 중재를 통한 분쟁을 해결하도록 하나의 문구를 포함해도 됩니다. 그러므로, 이 분석은 미국의 케이스들을 비교한 결과로서, 한국중재법도 또한 모든 필요한 조문들이 그것들이 광범위하건 제한된 범위이건 간에 모호한 이슈들을 피하기 위해 분명하고 오해없는 문구들이여야 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 케이스에 근거하여 발견한 점들은 저작권법을 포함한 광범위한 중재조항이 있는 경우 저작권의 유효성은 법원이 독점할 수 없다고 법원은 판단했습니다. 그리고 연방중재법은 법원이 청구취지가 중재가능한 클레임들에(arbitrable claims) 관하여 중재를 강요하도록 지원하고 있습니다. 이것은 저작권 케이스일지라도 계약에 있어서 중재조항이 법원이 중재를 강요하도록 중재가능한가 아닌가 결정하는데 분쟁에 있어 중요한 역학을 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 본 연구는 계약에서 광범위한 중재조항은 중재인이 지적재산 클레임에 대해 판정 또는 룰을 결정하게 허용한다는 것을 발견했습니다. 본 연구의 결과들은 계약에 있어 중재의 범위는 계약의 원칙을 적용한다는 것입니다. 그리고 중재조항에 있어서 침해와 유효성 문제들의 결정은 계약 해석에 관련되어 있다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 양 당사자가 분명하고 명확하게 달리 결정하지 않았다면, 양 당사자가 중재에 대해 동의했는가 아닌가의 의문점은 법원에 의해 결정되어지는 것입니다. 이것은 분명하고 명확한 문구가 중재조항에 존재하지 않는다면 중재인에 의해 결정되지 않는다는 것을 뜻합니다. 중재조항은 명백하게 중재인에게 결정의 권한을 주어야만 한다는 것입니다.

• The Journal of Korean society of community based occupational therapy
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.59-73
• /
• 2014

Objective : The purpose of this study is to understand Lived Experience of Suffering for family of victim with Sewol-ho ferry accident and to suggest the necessity of mental health occupational therapy regarding of psychological trauma of family of victim. Methods : This study was applied with Parse's Human becoming research method to recognize experience pain for 5 objects losing family with with Sewol-ho ferry accident. According to Parse's research mothod, secondary data, documentary video about experience pain of family of victim with Sewol-ho ferry accident was selected and analyzed. Results : Three core concept for lived experience of suffering of family with victim with Sewol-ho ferry accident as below statements. 1. Despair and sadness losing family, 2. Impotent feeling and guilty conscience breaking down daily life, 3. Seeking relief from suffering for remaining family. Although there were extreme impotent feeling of losing family with Sewol-ho ferry accident, structural conversion presented as process with denial reality which do not want to accept a death in the family and standing for remaining family. The conceptual integration was expressed to powering from valuing and languaging to connection-separation, revealing-concealingl. Conclusion : Family of victim with Sewol-ho ferry accident is losing meaning of life the goal of life with impotent feeling, despair and depression. It is urgently needed for mental health occupational therapy program to restore disruptive everyday activity and participation in community by developing occupational therapy program through meaningful occupation to family of victim.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.73-86
• /
• 2011

Today's arbitrations see themselves as the most effective scheme for dispute resolution in a variety of transactional context. While some kind of ADR system was already introduced in Korea as of 2007 with revision of the Consumer Basic Law, consumers' needs in dispute resolution remain unmet. Recently one consumer arbitration case divides the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, the result of the case is expected to affect tens of millions of arbitration agreements in the States which has the most developed scheme in consumer arbitrations. While Arbitration clauses in adhesion contracts are not automatically held to be substantively unconscionable, Class action waivers are one of the most controversial issues in consumer arbitration. In this study, with the theoretical background of consumer arbitrations general, and contractual defenses against adhesive contracts, reviewed are U.S. federal courts' attitudes toward certain consumer arbitration agreements including the class arbitration waiver. Moreover, several issues in AT&T case are examined for practical implications for consumer dispute resolution. All of these are expected to initiate further research to find some guidelines for the proper status and operation of consumer arbitration here in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.77-97
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been adjudicating on sports-related disputes since 1984. CAS can be regarded as world supreme court for sports settling down about 4200 cases including doping issues. Doping disputes are generally processed by CAS Appeals division and Anti-Doping Division. An appeal against the decision by sports-related bodies may be filed with CAS Appeals Division. Doping issues concerning Olympic games are on Anti-Doping Division, introduced from 2016 Olympic games and invested with complete authority by IOC. The Award of Maria Sharapova finds a player is responsible if found to have committed any Anti-Doping Rule Violation regardless of his/her intention or fault. It offers detailed jurisprudence on imposing such a specific period of ineligibility in view of the totality of the circumstances. The award of Xinyi Chen also confirms the Strict Liability Rule on anti-doping disputes. The player appealed there could be either accidental contamination of drinks, or doping laboratories' mistakes that affected the test results. But, all of them were rejected. Though dealing with doping disputes in a timely manner is important for seasonal sports events like Olympic games, it is necessary to prepare the acceptable and fair process for the players in the future.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.287-311
• /
• 2013

The arbitration parties may disagree with the arbitrator's award about whether they are eligible for the dispute case. While lots of disputes cases relating to subrogation are arising, it is not easy to find subrogation arbitration system to handle them clearly. The main issue is an availability of subrogation arbitration in case of the dispute which the insurer requests the arbitration against the carrier according to the arbitration clause of Bill of Lading. The direct parties of arbitration clause of the B/L are the carrier and the holder of the B/L. Could the insurer get the position of the arbitration party in stead of the holder of the B/L after compensation if there was an accident of insurance on the way of carriage? Even though there are a few arbitral awards of subrogation, the reason of the eligibility of subrogation arbitration is not enough. This paper scrutinized precedent research papers, arbitration awards, judicial precedents, and the Automobile Subrogation Arbitration System. Vague dispute resolution system which burden corporations with so many costs must be not good for business. In the view of economic efficiency, blank of contract, reciprocality, and Coase Theorem, it is recommended that subrogation arbitration system for the international trade would be better focus on the hypothesis of "Firm Offer Character of Arbitration Clause."

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.125-154
• /
• 2012

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published revised rules of arbitration, which come into force on 1 January 2012 (the ICC Rules 2012). The ICC Rules 2012 apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 January 2012, unless the parties have agreed to submit their arbitration to the rules in effect on the date of their arbitration agreement (Article 6(1)). The ICC Rules 2012 explicitly require both the arbitrators and the parties to make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. The changes will force participants to define more aspects of their claims and outline the merits of the dispute earlier on in the process. The Rules also contain new penalties for behaving in a way that undermines the process's efficiency. The new Rules permit the tribunal, when making allocating costs, to take into account the extent to which each party has conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Entirely new provisions relate to the emergency arbitrators, case management, and multi-party arbitrations. The ICC Rules 2012 take into account developments in arbitration practice and procedure, and in information technology, since the last revision of the rules in 1998, the aim being to provide modern and flexible procedures that promote efficiency in the arbitral process.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.92-113
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implied terms of safe berth under Voyage charterparty with the Rebon case. Where the safety of the berth is warranted, but not the safety of the port, then the charterer's obligation is to nominate a berth which can be approached safely from within the port and which was itself, save insofar as affected by hazards or risks which affect the port as a whole or all of the berths within it. This case is an appeal from an order made by the judge dismissing an appeal from a final declaratory award on preliminary issues made by arbitrators. The judge expressed the question for decision somewhat differently as follows: if a specific load port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed to load by the charterers and there is no express warranty in the charterparty of the safety of either the port or the berth to which the vessel is to be directed by the charterers, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the charterers must nominate a safe berth at that load port?