• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society
• /
• v.25 no.6
• /
• pp.47-57
• /
• 2009

In this study, the ultimate lateral load capacity of pile driven into multi-layered soil was estimated using cone penetration test results and a method was proposed to reflect multi-layered soil conditions. For multi-layered specimens prepared with different relative density at different layers, the cone penetration tests and lateral pile load tests were conducted. Based on the test results, measured and estimated values of the ultimate lateral load were compared and analyzed. The estimated results were obtained from the methods proposed by Broms (1964), Petrasovits & Award (1972) and Prasad & Chari (1999). The method was proposed for modifying the earth pressure distribution of Prasad & Chari (1999) to consider multi-layered soil conditions. From the analysis, it was seen that results obtained from the proposed method showed improvement with less data scatter similarly to those obtained from Broms (1964) and Petrasovits & Award (1972)'s methods.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.25-64
• /
• 2008

Third-Party awards are growing in popularity. They are the hit product of the year chosen by The Korea Economic Daily, the best 10 products of the year chosen by Sports paper, the best hit product chosen by consulting firm and the best venture company of the year chosen by Information and Communication Ministry. Then these questions may be followed. Why industry likes this type of advertisement? Does this type of advertisement influences consumers' purchase intention? And if it does, how? Many researchers have been interested in external cue of product quality by focusing research effort on brand, price, producer, warranty etc. However, important but under-explored area is the role of third-party reference for signaling product quality. This paper comes from the idea that the third-party reference may signal consumers like manufacturer brand, product brand, product price, and shop brand. We develop a related theories to address research questions and drive some research hypotheses based on the previous studies probing source credibility, attribution, and signal theory. We put more emphasis on source credibility. We conducted the research based on 3x2x2x2 between group factorial design to explore causal relationship between the third party award winning advertising(real, fictional, no) and the purchase intention of consumers exposed to other information simultaneously such as product type(experience, search), distribution channel(direct, indirect) and perceived price(high, low). Since subjects are divided into 2 groups based on the means of response without extra experimental stimulus in case of perceived price. 12 different advertisements are used for conducting this study. The results are followings. First, the source credibility of the third party goes up, consumers' purchase intention would go up. It seems that consumers think the credibility of the third-party most when they are exposed to the third party award winning advertisement. Second, the product type does moderate the relationship between the third-party award winning advertisement and purchase intention. And the type of the distribution channel also moderates this relationship. The consumers' purchase intention goes up higher when they buy experience good and there is significant difference of purchase intention when consumers are exposed to direct channel treatment condition. But, perceived price has nothing to do with the third-party winning advertisement context for raising consumer intention to buy advertised product.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2004

In these days, arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards？ The decision in Sawtelle, adopting a separate ground for review of punitive damages awards, is one that signals a significant change in the field of arbitration. This article addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing. It would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system. Compared to American practices, there could be many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be a future assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us. This article analyzed predispute arbitration agreements and agreements to arbitrate after a dispute has already arisen.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.115-137
• /
• 1999

The UNCITRAL, during its thirty-two session in 1999 discussed certain issues and problems identified in interactional commercial arbitration practice. The issues discussed include certain aspects if conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; arbitability ; soverign immunity ; consolidation of more than one case into one arbitral proceedings ; confidentiality of information in arbitral proceedings ; rasing claims in arbitral proceedings for the purpose of set-off ; decisions by "turncated" arbitral tribunals liability of arbitrators ; power by the arbitral tribunal to award interest ; costs of arbitral proceedings ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the state of origin. Among those issues discussed, most of States agreed that the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the State of origin should have priority over other issues. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues, possibly indicating whether further work should be towards a legislative text (such as a model legislative provision or a treaty) or a non-legislative text (such as a model contractual rule).

• Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.10-19
• /
• 2009

The objective of this study is to analyze the causal relationship among Non-profit Criteria of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award(MBNQA) and to compare the casuality among company, hospital and non-profit organization field. The survey instrument consists of 94 questions from the seven categories of the MBNQA. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is used to analyze the empirical data and estimates the path coefficients among the MBNQA categories. The result of our research is as follows, First, the Leadership effects on as a driver of all factors. Secondly, the positive effect of the Foundation on the Direction and the System categories, Finally, the positive influence of the Direction on the System categories of the MBNQA model. In this study, most hypothesis are statistically significant.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.121-150
• /
• 2006

Under the New York Convention, parties can petition the courts of the United States to confirm foreign arbitral awards. Although there is no definition in the Convention for 'non-domestic' awards, in the United States, federal and state courts read the Convention broadly and interpret this as permitting the enforcing authority to supply its own definition of 'non-domestic' in conformity with its own domestic law. There are a number of federal cases on this point. The court preferred this broad construction of 'non-domestic' awards because it comported with the intended purpose of the Convention, which was entered into to encourage the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. This means that in applying the New York Convention, U.S. courts have responded to the underlying spirit rather than the technical letter of the Convention. In brief, the New York Convention has much broader application in the United States. It is applicable not only to awards rendered outside of the United States, but also to non-domestic awards rendered within United States. As this article suggests, the general attitude towards foreign awards is more pro-enforcement in the United States, whether the award is rendered in favor of the American party or in favor of the foreign party.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to develop criteria for evaluating final reports of free inquiry activity and to apply developed evaluation criteria to free inquiry activity reports. 323 inquiry reports submitted to internal contests in the elementary schools as well as 189 award-winning ones from the inquiry competition for students in Seoul were collected. Nine categories and 18 sub-categories of evaluation criteria were derived by collecting reports analysis, literature reviews and interviews with 15 elementary school teachers. Criteria for each sub-category were organized into three steps and 12 elementary school teachers assigned scores for each sub-category, which were averaged. 132 including both award-winning and general reports were evaluated based on the developed evaluation criteria. The content validity and the reliability across scorers were significant. Furthermore, award-winning and general reports were significantly distinguished by the developed criteria in terms of all sub-category scores. The developed evaluation criteria will be an effective tool to asses student's free inquiry activity.