• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.125-151
• /
• 2018

Rapid industrial growth based on massive fossil fuel energy consumption has caused serious damages on natural environment and every aspects of human life. As demands for clean and pleasant living circumstance increases, conflicts and disputes around environmental problems have also been widespread. Given the 'environmental rights' is a relatively new legal concept, however, resolving environmental disputes through the traditional legal principles and litigation procedures could be restrictive and, in some sense. inefficient as well as expensive. With efforts to develop new legal principles on environmental disputes, the environmental dispute adjustment system has been introduced as an alternative dispute resolution to the traditional legal dispute procedures. The Korean Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission introduced as the environmental dispute adjustment system has been well established for the past twenty-seven years, given the steadily increasing numbers of applications to the Commission over environmental disputes. However, as most cases are still small in money terms and mainly subject to adjudication, the effectiveness and practical contribution of the Commission in the resolution of environmental disputes have in fact been limited. For the enhancement of the status and roles of the Commission as the prior instrument of the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) in environmental disputes, several suggestions could be considered as follows: First, mediation needs to be more activated than adjudication in order to meet the primary purpose of ADR that resolves environmental disputes according to free will of concerned parties. Second, the scope of mediation could be expanded to the areas including potential environmental damages. Third, the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commissions at both central and local levels need to be evenly distributed. Fourth, the mechanism and procedures of environmental dispute resolution should be standardized. Fifth, the status of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission could be elevated in rank by shifting its current affiliation from the Ministry of Environment to the Office of Prime Minister. Sixth, the organizational structure and human resources of the Commission need to be reinforced. Seventh, the current situation that tends to give priority to litigation procedures when an environment dispute is simultaneously pending in litigation and mediation should be eased and properly adjusted. Eighth, the adoption of mandatory mediation in advance to litigation needs to be discussed. Ninth, the legal authority of the Commission's decisions should be further guaranteed. If above suggestions are thoroughly reviewed and properly adopted, the roles, authority and power of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission would be increased in the era when environmental conflicts get widespread, requiring an effective alternative environmental dispute resolution mechanism.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.23-62
• /
• 2003

The Law amending the Conflict of Laws Act of the Republic of Korea ("Korea"), which had taken two years to prepare, was promulgated on April 7, 2001 and finally took effect as of July 1, 2001. Accordingly, the old earlier Conflict of Laws Act which was called "Seoboesabeop" in Korean ("Prior Act"Old Act) was replaced by the new Conflict of Laws Act called "Gukjesabeop" in Korean ("New Act"). In fact the Old Act Prior Act was promulgated in 1962, but it was regarded as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. However, since the Old Act because it was modeled after the chapter of the Private International Law of the Einfuehrungsgesetz zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB) of the Federal Republic of Germany ("German PIL") and the Japanese Private International Law ("Japanese PIL") which had been promulgated toward the end of the 19th century., the Old Act was viewed as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. As a result of the drastic change of the environment for international trade of which that has taken took place in parallel with the global information technology revolution on a global basis, the scope of issues to be addressed which should be resolved by the conflict of laws principles has been remarkably expanded, and various new issues of an entirely which are quite new in its type and nature have arisen been raised. In the field of conflict of laws in its narrow sense, a revolution or crisis of the traditional conflict of laws has been brought about by the advent in the United States rise of a the new methodology for of the conflict of laws, of the United States of America and in the process of overcoming the such crisis the conflict of laws of the European continent has undergone substantial changes such as the diversification of the connecting principles, the expansion of the principle of party autonomy and the consideration of the value of the substantive law to protect socio-economically weaker parties of. The Prior Act, which was based on However, with the mechanical connecting principles and contained various outdated the inappropriate provisions, the Old Act could not cope with the issues raised by the internationalization and globalization of the Korean society. Furthermore In addition, the Old Act Prior Act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory jurisdiction, whereas the expectation of the public was that the Conflict of Laws a Act should function as the "Basic Law of the International Legal Relationships"encompassing rules on international jurisdiction given the increase of international disputes. Furthermore the private international law has also attracted more attention from the Korean At the beginning of the new Millennium, thanks to the promulgation of the New Act, I believe that Korea has succeeded in achieving the modest goal of reflecting in the its codification substantial parts of the major developments of the private international law which the leading advanced continental European countries had achieved during the last century. The New Act has followed the approach of the traditional conflict of laws of the European continent. It is a product of the efforts to eliminate the then existing problems of the Prior Old Act and to adapt the Korean private international law regime to the standard of international conventions and national laws of advanced countries. Unlike the Prior Old Act which was heavily dependent upon the prior Japanese PIL and the prior German PIL, the New Act has been prepared by taking into full account the Rome Convention, the Swiss PIL, the new German PIL which took effect in 1986 and various conventions adopted by the Hague Conference. Therefore, the New Act has substantially reduced dependence upon the Japanese PIL and the German PIL, and has gained relatively greater universal validity. The fact that the New Act expressly declares that the determination of international jurisdiction is a matter of conflict of laws is a clear sign that it has departed from the German tradition which confines the conflict of laws principles to choice of laws rules, and moved toward a broader and more practical approach widely accepted in the area of conflict of laws. It is hoped, and I am personally confident, that the New Act will be able to achieve its intended objectives in the 21st century as the basic law for the ever-increasing legal relationships with a foreign element.