• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2004

우선 이번 세미나에 참석시켜 주신 한국중재학회와 북경중재위원회에 진심으로 감사를 드린다. 아래 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 일본 판례를 중심으로 일본에 존재하고 있는 문제와 상황을 소개한다. 현재 일본에 외국중재판정의 승인 및 판례집행에 기재된 관련 판례는 그리 많지 않다. 직접 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관계되는 것 외에 중재계약을 이유로 하는 방소항변등을 포함하여 지금까지 13건뿐이다. 그 중 1993년이래 15건의 판례가 중국경제무역중재위원회의 중재판정이 일본에서의 승인 및 집행에 관한 것이다. 이것은 중국법인과 일본법인간의 분쟁을 해결함에 있어서 중재가 아주 큰 역할을 하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있다. 이런 판례의 소개와 분석을 통하여 여러분들에게 일본의 법률상황을 소개한다. (중략)

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.149-181
• /
• 1998

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.31-36
• /
• 2001

Construction contract have great possibility of dispute between contract parties because of long term performance of contract, various participation of the person concerned, effect according to external environment, etc. It is needed correct comprehension and construction management because good reason of claims depends upon contract document or clauses of the related laws and regulations in cases. The purpose of this study is to suggest desirable Interpretation principle for the harmonious management of the construction work in the cases or arbitration adjudication.

• 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."

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2008

국제거래에서 분쟁이 소송으로 발전될 경우 당해 사안에 적용될 준거법의 결정문제와 어느 나라의 법원에서 재판을 받을 것인가에 대한 국제재판관할권의 문제가 빈번히 대두되고 있다. 소송을 제기하는 당사자들로서는 자신에게 유리한 재판결과를 얻을 수 있는 법이 준거법으로 선택될 가능성이 있는 국가의 법원에 소송을 제기하는 소위 '포럼 쇼핑 (forum shopping)' 전략을 세우기도 한다. 이러한 포럼 쇼핑에 대응하기 위해 영미 판례법인 common law에서는 오래 전부터 forum non conveniens를 확립하였다. 본 논문에서는 forum non conveniens를 심리한 미국 대법원의 판단기준을 살펴보면 먼저, 적절한 대체관할지의 존재여부이며, 둘째 사적이익 부분에서 자국민이 현저하기 불리한 위치에 처하는지를 확인하고, 셋째 공적이익 부분에서 미국의 이익이 심각하게 침해되지는 않는지를 검토하여 판단하게 된다. 이러한 법리적 판단근거를 제시하고 이에 대한 적용사례를 분석하여 향후 무역거래를 포함한 일련의 국제계약에 있어 분쟁시 국내기업들이 미국법정에 재판받지 않고 국내법원으로 재판관할지를 선택할 수 있는 전략을 제시함으로써 패소가능성 등의 계약위험을 줄일 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.125-157
• /
• 2012

This study is to vindicate the vacation of arbitral awards in the United States. It focuses on the harmony of case law with statutory law of the United States. Until the early twentieth century, the American legal system, having adopted the English common law view, harbored a hostile attitude toward arbitration. The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of the United States, enacted in 1925, was to eliminate the hostile attitude of courts toward arbitration. Congress is to enforce arbitration agreements into which parties have entered and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. The structure of grounds for vacating arbitration awards has two layers. One is of vacating grounds with statutory origins, such as the FAA and the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the other, of vacating grounds originating from a nonstatutory, case law background. For a while, vacatur based on case law has coexisted with vacatur on statutory grounds for arbitration awards. After the Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., however, the justification of vacating based on case law has weakened. Post-Hall Street decisions of circuit courts show ways to deal with manifest disregard of the law. One of them is the harmonization of the case law grounds for vacating with the statutory grounds. It seems that the manifest-disregard-of-law and public-policy exceptions show a possibility of survival after Hall Street. However, other nonstatutory grounds for vacation of arbitration awards have no firm basis after Hall Street.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

This article discusses the validity of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that provides arbitration as one of several dispute resolution methods. The Supreme Court has held selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that is conditional invalidity since the judgement of 2003Da318 decided on Aug. 22, 2003: In the following judgements of 2004Da42166 decided on Nov. 11, 2004 and 2005Da12452 decided on May 27, 2005, the Court stated that the selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that stipulates to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation would be valid as an effective arbitration agreement only if a party elects and proceeds an arbitration proceeding and another party responses to the arbitration proceeding without any objection. The definition of arbitration agreement, the formation of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement, the summary of relative judgements and academic theories will be reviewed in order to examine the appropriateness of the series of judgements of the Supreme Court. Based on such reviews, this article will investigate the adequacy of the Supreme Court judgements from the perspectives of i) the principle of party autonomy, ii) the structure of dispute resolution methods, iii) legal provisions of Arbitration Act, iv) legal stability, and v) the policy to revitalize the use of arbitration. At conclusion, this article will suggest the change of precedents of the Supreme Court's judgements with regard to the selective arbitral agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• Venture DIGEST
• /
• s.135
• /
• pp.38-39
• /
• 2009

지난 호에는 부정적인 언론사 오보의 경우에 명예훼손의 판단기준은 어떠하며 피해자들에게 어떤 권리와 절차가 있는지를 살펴보았다. 요약하면 공익적이지 못한 보도(진실 여부와 상관없이), 공익적이지만 진실하지 못한 보도, 공익적이지만 언론의 주의의무(상당성)를 다하지 못한 보도는 손해배상책임을 지는 불법적 보도이며, 손해배상 정정보도 등 보도로 인한 피해 구제를 법원보다 간편하고 신속하게 받을 수 있는 기관으로 언론중재위원회(이하 중재위)가 있다는 것이다. 이번 호에는 이어서 포털 뉴스 및 근거 없는 게시글에 대해서 대응하는 방법과 최근에 나온 판례에 대해 설명하고자 한다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.