• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.315-341
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 1999년에 전면 개정된 한국의 중재법과 1925년에 제정된 미국의 연방중재볍 및 2000년에 제시된 개정통일중재법의 내용 중 중재인의 권한과 의무들에 관한 규정들을 비교 분석한 것이다. 우선, 미국 중재법의 기본법이라 할 수 있는 연방중재법은 1925년에 제정된 이래 중재 이슈에 관한 발전들을 담아내지 못한 채 진부한 과거의 법률을 그대로 유지하고 있다. 따라서, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 중재판정과 같은 기본적인 권한 규정 외에 중재인의 임시적 처분이나 민사책임의 면제, 고지 의무등 새롭게 진전된 중재 환경의 변화나 논의들이 다루어지지 않고 있다. 그러나, 미국의 통일주법위원전미협의회가 주체가 되어 제시한 2000년의 개정통일중재법은 중재이론이나 케이스의 발전들을 반영하였을 뿐만 아니라, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 훨씬 구체적인 규정들을 담아내고 있다. 개정통일중재법은 중재언의 권한을 개정 이전보다 훨씬 강화하는 대신, 보다 엄격한 윤리적 의무를 부과함으로써 균형을 유지하려 하고 있다. 특히, 중재인의 올바른 중재판정을 이끌어 내기 위해 증거 확보에 있어 보다 강한 절차적 권한을 부여하고 있는 것이 특정이다. 아울러, 중재인으로 하여금 임시적 처분을 내릴 수 있는 권한을 부여하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 징벌적 배상을 결정할 수 있게까지 규정하고 있다. 그러나, 중재인의 절차적 권한의 강화는 동법이 의도한 바와는 달리 중재를 재판에 유사한 구조로 만듦과 동시에, 중재의 신속성과 최종성을 해치는 결과를 초래하는 것이 아닌가 하는 우려와 지적을 낳기도 한다. 한편, 한국의 중재법은 중재인의 임시적 처분권한과 고지의무를 규정하고 있지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법과 달리 민사적 책임면제 규정을 두고 있지는 않다. 특히, 한국 중재법에서 중재인은 증거를 수집하기 위하여 당사자의 임의적 협조에 의존하지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법에서는 증거개시제도까지 채택하고, 제 3 자도 소환할 수 있는 등 중재인의 절차적 권한이 훨씬 강하므로 한국 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한은 미국의 개정통일중재법에서의 그것보다는 훨씬 제한적이다. 한국의 중재를 더욱 실효성 있게 하기 위해서는 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한에 관한 규정을 보완해 주어야 할 것이다. 또 성공적인 중재를 위해서는 중재인의 전문성과 함께 윤리의식이 중요하므로 상사중 재원은 별도의 중재인 윤리규정을 제정해야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.45-66
• /
• 2016

The FAA provides that a district court may make an order vacating an arbitration award upon the application of any party to the arbitration where there was evident partiality on the arbitrator's behalf. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. held that arbitrators must disclose to the parties "any dealing that might create an impression of possible bias." Justice White attempted to limit the scope of evident partiality to instances where an arbitrator has a "substantial interest" in the dispute before disclosure is required. The Second Circuit held that if an arbitrator thinks that a nontrivial conflict of interest might exist, the arbitrator must either (i) conduct an investigation into the potential conflict, or (ii) disclose to the parties why he or she thinks there could be a conflict. Further, the arbitrator must disclose his or her intent not to investigate the matter. By utilizing a reasonable impression of partiality standard, the Ninth Circuit held that evident partiality can exist despite an arbitrator's actual acknowledgement of a conflict, and if an arbitrator fails to discharge his or her duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest, his or her constructive knowledge of the conflicts can give rise to evident partiality.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.31-47
• /
• 2008

An arbitrator's duty shall be independence and impartiality such as a judge who has procedurally absolute position. Independence is the freedom from others, impartiality is the status of having no-partial condition. Although these show relevance between independence and impartiality, in actuality, it is not easy to prove them. Therefore, arbitrator has to prove his or her position by opening the public of reality and by having an obligation of notification. Each country which applies Arbitration rules or Arbitration act stays the same as Korean Commercial Arbitration Board does. Hence, each country has the moral principles in order to establish a standard of judgement for essential factors and requests preferentially the impartiality and the publicity. In reality, court of justice in England excludes arbitrator who has the close relation to a person concerned. Justice in France cancelled an authorization of arbitrator because of having the economic interest to the person concerned. And also, In United States, Federal Court reverses an arbitration judgment without giving any partiality to a person concerned because of not opening a public about the relationship between arbitrator and a person concerned. Therefore, decision basis of the independence and the impartiality is standardized by the economic interest of a person concerned, professional relation, society connection, relationship between arbitrator and arbitration representative in the same case while in process of arbitration, arbitrator's nationality If arbitrator does not keep the independence and the impartiality by a position of judge, he or she has to make responsible. this duty is divided by two things: civil case and crime case. and if arbitrator does break this responsibility, he or she will get the cancellation of judge and compensation of damage. However, Korea is placed in the real circumstance without judge precedent and moral principles including the independence and impartiality. In order to getting the good reputation of international arbitration institution, this country will have to enact principles of the independence and impartiality for arbitrator.