• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.131-152
• /
• 2018

On October 31, 2013, the Singapore Court of Appeals handed down a landmark decision in the case of PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International and Others [2013] SGCA 57. The case arose out of an arbitration in Singapore involving the Malaysian conglomerate Astro and the Indonesian conglomerate Lippo, which culminated in a USD 250 million award in favor of Astro. The final award was given to three Astro subsidiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, but who were joined in the arbitration pursuant to an application by Astro. Lippo then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the enforcement orders. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the High Court's decision, and found that Astro was only entitled to enforce the awards. Also, the Court of Appeals undertook a detailed analysis of the use of active and passive remedies to defeat an arbitral award at the seat and the place of enforcement, respectively. It also touches on the innovation of forced joinders of third parties in arbitrations, which have garnered significant interest in the arbitration community. This decision is therefore expected to have a significant impact on the practice of international arbitration, including in relation to how awards can be enforced or defeated, as the case may be.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.185-207
• /
• 2008

한국 기업과 프랑스 기업 간에 한국기업이 프랑스기업으로부터 의약품의 임상자료 등에 관한 비밀정보 (Confidential information)를 받아서 한국식품의약품안전청에 의약품 제조허 가를 받기 위해 활용하는 과정에서 체결한 비밀유지 계약 (Secrecy Agreement)의 위반행위 여부의 분쟁이 발생하였다. 이 분쟁은 비밀유지계약 내의 중재조항에 의거하여 프랑스기업에 의해 프랑스 파리 소재 국제중재 판정부 (ICC Court Arbitral Tribunal) 에 회부되었고 한국기업이 응소하여 중재판정부에서 분쟁 사실들에 관한 양 당사자 회사들의 전문가들의 증언, 준비 서면들을 검토하여 비밀유지계약 각각의 조문의 해석을 통해 중재판정이 내려졌다. 이 중재판정은 ‘외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 뉴욕협약’에 의거하여 중재판정 집행지국인 우리나라의 법원에서 집행판결을 거치게 되었다. 이때 한국법원에서는 뉴욕협약상의 집행거부 사유들에 관한 판단을 한 후 프랑스기업의 일부 승소의 집행판결을 내렸다. 본 사례연구의 시사점을 보면, 중재조항에 의거한 ICC 중재판정부의 심사절차는 각 나라 고유의 판례나 규정보다는, 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 근거하여 중재판정이 내려졌다는 것이다. 우리나라 법원 역시 중재인의 건전한 상식에 근거를 둔 중재판정의 세부적 내용에 대하여 중재권한, 국제적 공공질서 상의 심각한 문제점이 존재하지 않은 점을 고려하여 일부분을 제외하고는 외국중재판정을 그대로 집행함을 인용하는 판결을 내렸다는 점이다. 따라서, 한국기업들이 국제분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 중재판정이 내려진 후 집행단계에서 중재판정 내용을 바꾸려는 노력을 하기보다는, 중재 절차 진행단계에서 한국 기업에게 객관적으로 입증할 수 있는 유리한 증거들을 중점적으로 적극 활용하여 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 바탕을 둔 중재판정을 유리한 방향으로 내리도록 유도하는 것이 더욱 바람직한 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.213-244
• /
• 2004

This article studied on international trade dispute of enforcement procedure of foreign arbitral awards at Korean Supreme Court, which is especially related to New York Convention article 5, The key points of most enforcement procedure were about public policy according New York Convention article 5, 2, b and New York Convention article 5, 1. Particularly, Judgement of public policy from Supreme Court represented that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award is to present and protect basic moral conviction and social order from spoiling, and not only domestic situation but also international stability of transaction should be taken into consideration in judging on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, which is construed under certain limitation. In this point, you should be understand the concept on refusal reasons in enforcing of foreign arbitral awards

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2022

As a result of a close review focusing on the case of obstruction of epidemiological investigation by a religious group A in Daegu, which was a problem when the pandemic of Covid-19 infection began in Korea around February 2, 2020, when an epidemiological investigator requested a specific group to submit a list, While there have been cases where an act of not responding or submitting an edited omission list was sentenced to the effect that the act did not fall under an epidemiological investigation, in the case of non-submission of the visitor list for the B Center, even though a 'list of visitors' was requested. Regarding the fact of refusal without a justifiable reason, 'providing a list of persons entering the building is a key factual act that forms a link between epidemiological investigations accompanying an epidemiological investigation, and refusing to do so is also an act of refusal and obstruction of an epidemiological investigation. There are cases where it is possible to demand criminal punishment. Regardless of whether the request for submission of the membership list falls under the epidemiological investigation, there are cases in which the someones' actions correspond to the refusal or obstruction of the epidemiological investigation. A lower court ruling that if an epidemiological investigation is rejected or obstructed as a result of interfering with factual acts accompanying an epidemiological investigation, comprehensively considering whether or not the list has been diverted for purposes other than epidemiological investigation, the logic is persuasive. Epidemiological investigations such as surveys and human specimen collection and testing are conducted for each infectious disease patient or contact confirmed as a result of the epidemiological investigation, but epidemiological investigations conducted on individual individuals cannot exist independently of each other, and the This is because the process of identification and tracking is essential to an epidemiological investigation, and if someone intentionally interferes with or rejects the process of confirming this link, it will result in direct, realistic, and widespread interference with the epidemiological investigation. In this article, ① there are differences between an epidemiological investigation and a request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, but there are areas that fall under the epidemiological investigation even in the case of a request for information, ② Considering the medical characteristics of COVID-19 and the continuity of the epidemiological investigation, the epidemiological investigator the fact that the act of requesting a list may fall under the epidemiological investigation, ③ that the offense of obstructing the epidemiological investigation in certain cases may constitute 'obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means', and ④ rejecting the request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act from September 29, 2020 In this case, it is intended to be helpful in the application of the Infectious Disease control and Prevention Act and the practical operation of epidemiological investigations in the future by pointing out the fact that a new punishment regulation of imprisonment or fine is being implemented.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.343-373
• /
• 2006

지적재산권의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 전통적으로 지적재산권의 침해에 있어서 결과의 발생이 없는 행위지를 침해지로 인정하지 않았다. 어문과 예술작품을 보호하기 위해 1886년 체결된 베른협약(Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) 제5조 제1항은 저작자가 베른협약에 따라 보호되는 저작물에 관하여 본국 이외의 동맹국에서 각 법률이 현재 또는 장래에 자국민에게 부여하는 권리 및 이 협약이 특별히 부여하는 권리를 향유한다고 규정하여 내국민대우원칙을 천명하고 있다. 또한 베른협약 제5조 제2항은 저작권의 보호와 향유는 저작물의 본국에서 보호가 존재하는 여부와 관계가 없이, 보호의 범위와 저작자의 권리를 보호하기 위하여 주어지는 구제의 방법은 오로지 보호가 주장되는 국가의 법률의 지배를 받는다라고 규정하여 저작권 침해가 발행한 국가의 법률의 적용을 명시하고 있다. 인터넷과 무선통신 기술의 발달은 저작물을 디지탈 형식으로 실시간에 전세계에 배포하는 것을 가능하게 하였다. 특히 저작물의 인터넷상에서의 배포는 다국적 저작권 침해행위를 야기하여, 저작권자가 다수의 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 제기하여 판결을 집행하는 것이 필요하게 되었다. 헤이그국제사법회의(Hague Conference on Private International Law)에서 1992년부터 논의되어 온 민사 및 상사사건의 국제재판관할과 외국판결에 관한 협약(Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters)에서 채택된1999년의 예비초안(preliminary draft) 및 2001년 외교회의에서 수정된 잠정초안(Interim text) (이하 헤이그 협약 )은 저작권자가 저작권침해행위가 발생한 각 국가에서 저작권 침해행위를 금지하는 소송을 제기할 필요없이, 동 협약의 한 가맹국가의 법원의 저작권침해금지판결을 다른 가맹국가에서도 집행할 수 있는 가능성을 제시해 주는데 의미가 있다. 헤이그 협약 제10조는 불법행위(torts)에 관한 일반적인 재판관할에 관한 규정을 두고 있으며, 저작권침해에 관한 분쟁은 동 조항의 적용을 받는다. 제10조에 의해 당사자는 가해행위지 국가의 법원 또는 결과발생지 국가의 법원에서 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 결과발생지의 경우 제10조 1항 (b)는 피고가 자신의 행위가 본국의 법규에 비추어 동일한 성격의 손해를 초래할 수 있다라고 합리적으로 예견할 수 없었던 경우에 본 조항의 적용을 배제하고 있다. 인터넷을 통한 저작권침해의 경우, 피고가 자신의 국가의 법규하에서 합법적으로 저작물을 웹사이트에 게시하였으나, 그 행위가 다운로딩이 행해진 국가에서 불법인 경우, 피고는 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었으므로 이에 문제가 제기된다. iCrave TV사건에서, 피고인 캐나다회사가 미국 및 캐나다에서 방송되는 텔레비젼 방송 프로그램을 자신의 웹사이트에 게시하여 이용자들로 하여금 컴퓨터를 통하여 방송을 재시청 할 수 있도록 하였는데 이는 캐나다에서 합법인 반면에 미국에서는 저작권 침해에 해당한다. 피고는 방송 프로그램을 인터넷상에서 재방송하는 것은 캐나다법상 합법이므로 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었다고 주장하면서, 해당 사이트에 오직 캐나다 거주자만의 접속을 허용하고 미국 거주자의 접속을 제한하는 일련의 Click-Wrap 계약과 스크린 장치를 제공하였다고 주장하였다. 본 사건 피고의 주장을 받아들인다고 가정할 때, 제10조 1항(b)에 의해 원고는 결과발생지인 미국법원의 재판관할을 강제할 수 없을 것이다. 지적재산권을 둘러싼 분쟁에 관한 재판관할과 국제법상의 판결의 승인 및 집행의 통일성을 기하기 위하여 2001년 1월 세계지적재산권기구(World Intellectual Property Organization)가 제안한 WIPO 협약초안(Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters)은 헤이그 협약이 재판관할과 판결의 승인 및 집행에 대한 일반적인 접근을 하고 있는 점에 반하여 지적재산권자의 보호라는 측면을 고려하여 지적재산권침해소송에 국제재판관할권을 규정하고 있다. WIPO 협약초안 제6조는 저작권자가 저작권 침해를 막기 위한 합리적인 조치를 취한 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 피할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 본 조항에 의할 경우, iCrave TV사건의 피고는 미국에서의 저작권 침해소송을 회피할 수 있을 것이다. 이상과 같이 헤이그 협약이 외국판결의 승인 및 집행을 가능하게 하고 있음에도 불구하고, 외국법원의 판결이 다수의 가맹국가에서 집행되지 못하는 가장 큰 장애는 대다수의 국가들이 외국법원의 판결이 공서양속(Public Policy)에 반하는 경우 판결을 승인하지 않는 예외규정을 두고 있기 때문이다. 미국의 경우, Uniform Recognition Act와 Restatement(Third) of Foreign Relations에 따른 공서양속의 예외규정(Public Policy exception)은 외국법원의 판결의 승인을 부인하는 근거가 된다. Yahoo! 사건에서 Yahoo! Inc.의 옥션 사이트를 통해 독일 나치 소장물의 판매가 이루어졌는데, 프랑스 형법상 이는 범죄행위에 해당하므로, 프랑스 법원은Yahoo! Inc.에게 프랑스 이용자가 당해 옥션 사이트에 접속할 수 없도록 모든 가능한 조치를 취할 것을 명하였다. 이에 미국 법원은 프랑스 법원의 판결은 Yahoo! Inc.의 미국헌법 제1 수정(First Amendment)의 언론의 자유(freedom of speech)에 반하므로 판결의 집행을 거부하였는데 이는 공서양속의 예외규정을 보여주는 예이다. 헤이그 협약 제28조와 WIPO 협약초안 제25조 또한 공서양속의 예외규정을 두고 있다. 본 논문은 인터넷과 통신기술의 발달로 야기되는 다국적 저작권 침해사건에서 한 국가의 법원의 저작권 침해금지판결이 다수의 국가에서 승인 및 집행될 수 있는 능성을 헤이그 협약과 WIPO 협약초안 및 미국판결을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 국제적으로 통일된 저작권법이 존재하지 않고 외국 판결의 승인을 부인하는 예외조항과 외국판결의 집행에 관한 각국의 이해관계와 준거법의 해석이 다른 현시점에서 지적재산권의 속지주의를 뛰어넘어 외국법원의 판결을 국제적으로 집행하는 것은 다소 어려움이 있어 보이나 국제적인 집행가능성의 열쇠를 제시하는 헤이그 협약과 장래의 국제조약에 그 기대를 걸어볼 수 있겠다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2002

When the ruling of Foreign Arbitral Awards contradicts the public policy of the enforcement state, it can be a ground for a refusal to enforce the ruling. New York Convention V section 2, UNCITRAL section 36, and Korean arbitration law section 36 confirm this principle. The final ruling of international arbitral awards should be respected according to the international convention or the principle of reciprocity, which cancel out the above principle: when the ruling contradicts the country's public policy, it can be refused to enforcement. Since the Helsinki General Convention, ILA have studied upon it and presented the final report and recommendation during the 2002 New Delhi General Convention. In it, firstly, the finality of awards rendered in the context of international commercial arbitration should be respected save in exceptional circumstances. Secondly, every state is recommended the “international public policy”, on which it can refuse to follow the ruling of international arbitral awards, and advised to respect it as far as possible.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.