• 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
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2013

This article focuses on integrating institutional mediation systems, especially the analysis of the leading ADR operation. Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party, a mediator, facilitates the resolution of a dispute by promoting voluntary agreements by the parties to the dispute. A mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, focuses the parties on their interests, and seeks agreement. These standards give meaning to this definition of mediation. Standard mediation clauses are construed as broadly as possible, and mediation is compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that the mediation process is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Performing the conflicts check early in the process helps in eliminating any awkwardness or delays caused by making disclosures after mediation commences. Mediator impartiality is central to the mediation process. A mediator should mediate only those matters in which she or he can remain impartial and evenhanded. If at any time the mediator is unable to conduct the process in an impartial manner, the mediator is obligated to withdraw.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This article examines the Annulment Mechanism of arbitral awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The primary feature in the ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration regarding the review of awards involves the unified nature of the ICSID system, as compared to the scattered and multi-layered system of review existing under arbitration rules, national legislation, and international convention. This unity can be perceived at different levels. The ICSID annulment mechanism entails only a set of rules; thus, only one set of application standards of review will be implemented, as opposed to sometimes conflicting layers of application rules, laws, and convention, as in the case of non-ICSID arbitration. However, some of the recent annulment decisions have raised serious questions about the breadth of annulment in practice, as opposed to its original design. Nonetheless, implementing a new system under the ICSID awards to be reviewed by an appellate court appears to create more problems than it solves. The potential impact of introducing that mechanism could result in a longer and more complex proceeding, with uncertain benefits.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• 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.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제16권9호
• /
• pp.386-395
• /
• 2016

이 연구는 부모의 미디어 중재유형이 청소년의 방송프로그램 등급제 실효성 인식에 미치는 영향을 파악하기 위해 실시되었다. 이를 위해 중학생 520명을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시했다. 등급제 실효성은 등급제가 어린이와 청소년을 유해한 콘텐츠로부터 잘 보호한다는 믿음과 반드시 필요한 제도라는 믿음을 의미한다. 분석결과, 중학생들이 부모의 미디어 중재가 '자율적/지지적 제한'이라고 인식할수록 등급제의 실효성이 크다고 인식하지만, '통제적 중재'라고 인식할수록 등급제는 실효성이 없는 제도라는 인식이 강하다는 점을 발견했다. 이와 함께, 폭력적 미디어에 많이 노출되는 중학생일수록 등급제는 실효성이 없다고 생각하는 경향이 강하게 나타났다. 이 결과는 연령에 맞지 않는 부적절한 콘텐츠를 제한하는 이유에 대해 자녀와 대화를 나누되 부모가 명확한 논리를 제시하는 중재 유형이 등급제의 실효성을 강화하는데 효과적일 수 있다는 점을 의미한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.55-76
• /
• 2013

This study aims to analyze the main features of Mongolian arbitration system compared with Korean Arbitration Law which was revised under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law. On the basis of this comparative study, certain differences are suggested: First, the environment of Mongolian arbitration is still insufficient in terms of its operation and usage at the international level. Second, the Mongol National Arbitration Court has established Ad-hoc Arbitration Rules and has promoted Ad-hoc Arbitration although it is an institutional arbitration organization. Third, the arbitration objects are defined as the types of tangible and intangible assets in Mongolia which are different from those of the Korean Arbitration Law. Accordingly, court and officer disputes, family disputes, labor-management relations, and criminal matters are covered by the arbitration objects. Fourth, Mongol Arbitration Law specifies the following persons disqualified for arbitrator appointment: the member of the Constitutional Court, judge, procurator, inquiry officer, investigator, court decision enforcement officer, attorney, or notary who has previously rendered legal service to any party of the disputes, and any officials who are prohibited by laws to be engaged in positions above the scope of their duties. Fifth, the arbitrator selection and appointment criteria should be documented, and the arbitrator should have the ability to resolve the disputes independently and fairly and achieve concord from both parties. Sixth, if there is no agreement between the parties, the arbitration language should be Mongolian, and the arbitral tribunal has no power to decide on it. Seventh, despite the agreement for a documentary hearing between the parties, there should be provided opportunities for an oral hearing if either of the parties requires it. Eighth, if the parties do not understand the language of the arbitration, the parties can directly ask the translation service. They should also keep secrets in the process of arbitration. Ninth, the cancellation of arbitral award is allowed by the application of the parties, not by the authority of the court. Except for the nine differences above, the Mongolian arbitration system is similar to that of the Korean Arbitration Law. This paper serves to contribute to the furtherance in trade relationship between Mongolia and Korea after the rapid and efficient resolution of disputes.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.49-73
• /
• 2012

2000년 이후 한-인도간 교역규모가 증대함에 따라, 양국간 분쟁 또한 증가가 예상된다. 국내기업이 인도기업과 분쟁을 효율적이면서 효과적으로 해결하기 위하여는 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결방법(Alternative Dispute Resolution; ADR)에 대한 이해가 중요하다. 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결제도의 특징으로는 첫째, 협상, 조정(conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat) 및 중재에 의한 해결방법이 주요 ADR제도이고, 둘째, 인도는 중재 조정법에 의하여 조정(conciliation)에 관한 별도의 규정을 마련하여 강제력을 부여하고 있으며, 셋째, 조정제도는 크게 conciliation, mediation 및 Lok Adalat로 구분할 수 있다. 한국기업들이 인도기업과 분쟁을 해결하는 방법을 다음과 같이 제언하고자 한다. 첫째, 향후 인도기업과 투자나 거래를 하고자 하는 한국기업들은 ADR제도를 활용하여 분쟁을 해결하여야 하며, 둘째, 이를 위해 인도의 각 ADR제도에 대한 지식을 사전에 습득하고 각 분쟁 상황에 맞는 유용한 ADR방법을 선택하여야 한다. 셋째, 협상력을 강화하여야 하며, 넷째, 인도의 공공분야에 직접투자를 할 경우에는 Lok Adalat 제도를 숙지하여 이에 대하여 적극적으로 대처하여야 하며, 마지막으로 분쟁이 발생한 경우 해결방법을 찾는 것보다 분쟁을 예방하는 것이 중요하다 하겠다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.93-119
• /
• 2009

Nowadays the number of crimes is increasing rapidly and society is getting more and more dangerous. Recently the criminal aspect of our society, the intelligence, diversity, localized area, as well as for the crime victims also difficult to predict the damage recovery is not easy to change their level of pain and are also serious. This phenomenon is increasingly expected to intensify, the proper response is a factory. The more so if the victim of murder. The criminal mediation working on the operational adjustments Borrower payment, Construction charges, investments and financial transactions due to interpersonal conflicts that occurred as a fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust property crimes such accused, individuals between the defamatory, offensive, encroachment, violating intellectual property rights and private Disputes about the complaint case and other criminal disputes submitted to mediation to resolve it deems relevant to the case who are accused. But the core of a detective control adjustment, adjust the members' representative to the region, including front-line player or a lawyer appointed by the attorney general at this time by becoming parties to this negative view may be ahead. Some scholars are criticizing the current criminal justice system for the absence of proper care for the criminal victims, as an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system. The introduction of the summary trial and related legal cases, the command structure, compensation system, crime victims' structural system can be seen as more classify, crime subject to victim's complaint, By case with a criminal misdemeanor in addition to disagree not punish criminal, minor offense destination, traffic offenders, regular property crime, credit card theft, intellectual property rights violators can be seen due to more categories can try. They sued in law enforcement, Prosecution case has been received and if any one party to the criminal detective Arbitration request arbitration by the parties can agree to immediately contact must be referred to arbitration within 15 days of when the arbitration case will be dismissed. These kinds of early results of the case related to, lawyers are involved directly in the arbitration shall be excluded. Arbitration system is the introduction of criminal justice agencies working to help resolve conflicts caused by adjustment problems will be able to. This article does not argue that we should stick to the traditional justice system as a whole. Instead it argues that the restrictive role of the traditional justice is to be preserved.

• 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.