• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

This article examines the Challenge through Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards. Either party may request annulment of the award by applying in writing addressed to the ICSID Secretary-General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The annulment proceedings must focus on the award itself. Because committees have no inherent supremacy over the arbitral tribunal, they should not review the tribunal's findings on evidence, damage, interest, and cost findings. Otherwise, the parties would have, in effect, two opportunities, and that will almost certainly weaken the reliability of the entire ICSID system. In short, because of the limited scope of review under ICSID annulment and because annulment is not an opportunity for the parties to re-try the case, committees should not allow new arguments or new evidence. Since an annulment committee is not a court of appeals, it cannot create a new res judicata. Committees can only decide not to annul an award, thus confirming the existing res judicata or annul the award, in which case the affected decision ceases to be res judicata. An obvious annulment decision stipulating which particular findings of the award remain res judicata should prevent any uncertainty in resubmission proceedings.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.65-87
• /
• 2015

This article examines the Stay of Enforcement of ICSID Arbitration Award. The effect of the stay is that the award is not subject to enforcement proceedings under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention pending the outcome of the annulment application. The annulment committee must decide the stay, unless the applicant sought the stay with the request for annulment, in which case the ICSID Secretary -General must grant it automatically. This automatic stay -which can only relate to the entire award-remains in force until the committee is constituted and issues a decision on the request for stay. ICSID committees have taken different positions on whether a stay of enforcement is exceptional or not. Some committees have held that because the ICSID Convention explicitly recognizes that the rights of the award creditor could be subject to a stay, stays are not exceptional. ICSID practice shows that most committees have rejected the proposition that the merits and prospects of the application for annulment should influence the committee's decision whether to grant a stay. In addition, ICSID practice regarding the specific circumstances that will justify a stay of enforcement is unclear, and committees have focused on different factors to decide whether to grant a stay such as prospect of prompt compliance with the ward, hardship to one of the parties, risk of non-recovery and irreparable harm to the award debtor. Also, ICSID practice shows that even though the Convention is silent on this issue, committees have generally held that they are empowered to condition the stay of enforcement on the granting of security by the requesting party.

• Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.281-284
• /
• 1991

Combination effects of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and trimethoprim (TMP) against nine gram positive bacterial strains and 43 gram negative bacterial strains which included 40 strains of animal intestinal bacteria were studied in vitro. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of SMX and TMP alone and 20:1 (SMX : TMP) mixture (ST) were investigated by the method recommended by Ad Hoc Committee of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy for the Evaluation of Sensitivity Testing Methods for Sulfamethoxazole and Trimethoprim. MICs of ST were more potentiated than those of SMX alone in 8 of 9 gram positive strains and 40 of 43 gram negative strains. Especially, 38 strains of 40 intestinal bacteria showed significant susceptibility to ST as compared to SMX. These results suggest a strong synergistic activity of ST mixture against animal intestinal bacteria, The activity was considered to be comparable to those of other current antibiotics.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.62 no.3
• /
• pp.259-272
• /
• 2017

In this study, recently developed swarm intelligence algorithm called Social Spider Optimization (SSO) approach and its enhanced version of SSO algorithm with spider jump techniques is used to develop a structural optimization technique for steel space structures. The improved version of SSO uses adaptive randomness probability in generating new solutions. The objective function of the design optimization problem is taken as the weight of a steel space structure. Constraints' functions are implemented from American Institute of Steel Construction-Load Resistance factor design (AISC-LRFD) and Ad Hoc Committee report and practice which cover strength, serviceability and geometric requirements. Three steel space structures are optimized using both standard SSO and SSO with spider jump (SSO_SJ) algorithms and the results are compared with those available in the literature in order to investigate the performance of the proposed algorithms.

• TTA Journal
• /
• s.51
• /
• pp.108-117
• /
• 1997

현행 Internet 도메인 네임(domain name)에 대한 관리체계를 개선하기 위한 gTLD-MoU회의가 4월 29일부터 5월1일까지 스위스 제네바의 ITU본부에서 개최되었다. 현재 미국 독점으로 관리되고 있는 Internet top level domain name의 등록 및 관리체계를 전면적으로 개선하기 위해 개최된 본 회의는 지난해 11월 발족이후 이에 대한 검토작업을 진행해 온 IAHC(Internet International Ad Hoc Committee)의 주관으로 IANA, ISOC, ITU, WIPO를 포함, 전 세계로부터 101개 기관, 126명의 대표가 참석하였으며, 향후 Internet top level domain name의 등록업무 및 관리체계 개선에 관한 세부내용을 담은 양해각서(gTLD-MoU)에 대한 논의와 함께 80개 기관 대표가 서명에 참가한 가운데 gTLD-MoU에 대한 서명식을 가졌다. 한편, gTLD-MoU가 5월 1일로 정식 발효됨에 따라 ITU는 앞으로 gTLD-MoU의 관리기관(depository) 역할을 수행하게 되며, MoU 및 서명자 관리와 관련정보의 유통업무 등을 담당하게 된다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• 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).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• Proceedings of the Technology Innovation Conference
• /
• 1998.06a
• /
• pp.131-163
• /
• 1998

The interest in the evaluation of government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs) has increased markedly in Korea in 1990s; this is mainly because of the increasing needs 1) to improve the quality of R&D at GRIs, and 2) to reorient the GRIs' strategic position in Korean national innovation systems due to the enhancement of R&D capabilities of private companies and universities during last decade. As a first attempt to diagnose the managerial and strategic issues of GRIs, a Multi-Ministerial Evaluation Committee was established as an ad hoc task force under the Prime Minister's Office in 1991. According to the recommendations of the committee, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to which most of GRIs were affiliated, made it a rule to evaluate the annual performance of GRIs since 1992. This paper examines the recent experience of MOST's evaluation of Government-sponsored Research Institute in Korea. After several years'efforts of Science & Technology Policy Institute(STEPI) to build prospective evaluation systenL MOST decided to apply two supplementary approaches for the evaluation of GRIs; one is summative annual evaluation and the other is formative 3-year evaluation. The annual evaluation system that is designed as a temporary measure is to monitor and to guide the self-evaluation activities of GRIs. In the process of annual evaluation, MOST tries to minimize its direct involvement, and allows each GRI to develop self-evaluation system that is most appropriate for the unique characteristics of the institute. If there exist urgent issues under scrutiny, however, it can be incorporated and examined by a group of external experts as special issues in the annual evaluation system. The aim of 3-year evaluation is both to examine the past performance of each GRI and to investigate whether the strategic role of each GRI is viable in the future. Its major focus, however, lies not on auditing past performance but on strengthening future strategic position of each GRI. The MOST designates a group of evaluation experts with appropriate knowledge and competence as members of the General Evaluation Committee for one year. With the help of STEPI, a specialized research institute for R&D evaluation, the General Evaluation Committee develops methodology and procedures for the actual evaluation of GRIs. Based on the evaluation reports and recommendations from the General Evaluation Committee, the MOST develops various policy measures for strengthening GRIs.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• 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.