• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제10권4호
• /
• pp.439-455
• /
• 2008

The SPS Agreement, concluded in the Uruguay Round for the purpose of controlling SPS risks, has traditionally been recognized to maintain the narrowest scope of application compared with TBT Agreement and GATT in relation with environmental provisions. Contrary to such an understanding on the scope of the SPS Agreement, the panel in the EC-Biotech case found that the SPS Agreement extends to regulate trade-restrictive measures on Genetically Modified Organizations(GMOs) causing health and environmental risks. This expanding scope of the SPS Agreement would have substantial influence on domestic environmental regulations as well as Multilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs). This paper discusses the consequences of an expanding ambit for the WTO SPS Agreement through the designation of a wider range of health and environmental regulations affecting trade as SPS measures. As a result, not only precautionary measures on GMO risks, but also other health and environmental measures with trade impacts, could be subject to SPS control, and consequently, the institutional rigors of the WTO regime. However, strict and literal interpretation of the SPS provisions to expand its applicable scope would cause concerns about the WTO's intervention on the purely environmental measures. Pursuing harmonized and flexible interpretation of provisions on environment-related conflicts as well as accepting precautionary principle included MEAs will contribute to reduce such kind of concerns.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2010

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, arbitration, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, it will be important thing for arbitral institutions to reach an agreement to promote the dispute settlement of the commercial disputes, for which efforts have been made between the Korean Commercial Arbitral Board(KCAB) and principal arbitration institutions of the foreign countries. Since 1973, the KCAB has entered into many arbitration agreements with well-known foreign institutions of arbitration. If the place of arbitration is not so designated by the parties, it, as a general rule, shall be the country of the respondent(s) under the Korea-Japanese Arbitration Agreement. On the other hand, the U.S.-Korean Commercial Arbitration Agreement maintains 'Joint Arbitration Committee which finally decide the place of arbitration. In 1996, the Korea-Austria Agreement of Cooperation was concluded for the prompt and equitable settlement on an amicable basis of commercial disputes. Under this Agreement, arbitral institutions between Korea and Austria agreed to act as an appointing authority in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It is also very important for Korea and China including North Korea to cooperate each other for the settlement of the commercial disputes within the Pan Yellow Sea Economic Bloc(PYSEB). The PYSEB is quickly becoming a distinctive and crucial region in the world sharing geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Finally, it should be considered to establish a central common system for settlement promotion of the commercial disputes within the PYSEB through the arbitration agreement. Such a dispute resolution system was already introduced and established within the area of the NAFTA, and it is called the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.221-241
• /
• 1998

Though the arbitration agreement is a means to resolve disputes autonomously in essence, the Principle of Parties Autonomy and the Principle of Free Contracting can not be applied infinitely without any limitations but subject to the Public Policy and the Compulsory Provisions as established by an interested country. Such principle of law is applied to international arbitration agreements as well, but their validity should be determined by different standards from those in domestic arbitration agreements, in consideration of their internationality. The essential effect of arbitration agreement is to exclude from the jurisdiction of State courts. Depending upon definition of the legal nature of arbitration agreement, the range and contents of the effect of such agreement will vary. Whether State courts can intervene in claims related to Compulsory Provisions is an issue at the level of legislation policy which can not be easily concluded. But, the applicability of Compulsory Provisions can not serve as an imperative ground to deny the eligibility of claims for arbitration, so far as such claims can be disposed of by the parties. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view the arbitration agreement as a substantive contract in its legal nature enabling the authority for dispute resolution to be delegated to arbitrator, so that the Principle of Parties Autonomy can be widely applied throughout the arbitration procedure as well as with other legal acts on private laws. With this, the parties can enjoy an arbitration award appropriate for characteristics of a specific arbitration agreement, thus resulting in facilitating the use of arbitration procedure for international trade activities. To conclude, the Public Policy and the Compulsory Provisions as limitations on arbitration agreement should be applied to such an extent that they can protect States basic moral faith and social order.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2019

In investigating how set-off defenses matter in arbitration, one should take into account that it is not permitted against the parties' will for arbitrators to rule on the disputes that are not the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties involved, because it is considered that the parties intend to solve only the disputes which are the subject of the agreement by arbitration. Also, one should keep in mind that the parties must settle the disputes that are the subject of an arbitration agreement by arbitration when they conclude the agreement, and it is not allowed against the parties' will to resolve the disputes in other ways. The parties may agree whether the respondent can request for arbitration on the counterclaim, which is his/her claim against the claimant, and whether the respondent can raise a plea for a set-off that his/her claim against the claimant is a counter obligation. Failing on such agreement, the respondent may submit a counterclaim when his/her claim and the claimant's claim are the subject of the same arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal may rule on the counter obligation when the arbitration agreement, which becomes the basis for the claimant' claim, has an effect on the counter obligation. Where the claimant fails to raise an objection even after he/she becomes aware that the respondent has requested for arbitration or has raised a plea for set-off by providing his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement as a counterclaim or a counter obligation, the arbitral tribunal may rule on the respondent's claim against the claimant. On these occasions, the arbitral tribunal has to guarantee the parties an opportunity to defend themselves by pointing out those situations. It will meet the purposes of arbitration systems to rule out the jurisdiction of the courts when the plaintiff alleges the existence of the arbitration agreement, in case the respondent raises a plea for set-off based on his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement in the litigation procedures. However, where the plaintiff fails to allege the existence and conducts pleading in the court with regard to the counter obligation, the court must not reject the respondent's set-off defense because of the existence of the agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2001

Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. Arbitration has become increasingly popular in settling international and domestic commercial disputes nowadays. The importance of arbitration agreement cannot be overemphasized. It is the most reasonable way to settle commercial disputes. There are two types in arbitration agreement. one is arbitration clause, the other is submission agreement. The arbitration agreement must be made in writing, in addition, other communication instruments shall be considered as effective arbitration agreement if they are properly documented. Over the past few decades, a considerable number of studies have been conducted on the legal property of arbitration agreement in Germany and Japan. Its legal property is aspect of substantial law contract. The basis of arbitration agreement is the principle of party autonomy. The important effect of arbitration agreement is to preclude jurisdiction from national court. The respondent shall raise a plea not later than when submitting his first defense on the merits of the action. As positive effect of arbitration agreement, the court must support the conduct of arbitral proceedings and arbitrator can be appointed upon request of a party.

• KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems (TIIS)
• /
• 제6권8호
• /
• pp.1982-1997
• /
• 2012

Authenticated multiple key agreement protocols not only allow participants to agree the multiple session keys within one run of the protocol but also ensure the authenticity of the other party. In 2011, Dehkordi et al. proposed an identity-based authenticated multiple key agreement protocol. In this paper, we demonstrate that Dehkordi et al.'s protocol is vulnerable to impersonation attacks. Furthermore, we have found that their protocol cannot provide perfect forward security or mutual security. Then we propose an identity-based authenticated multiple key agreement protocol which removes the weaknesses of the Dehkordi et al.'s protocol. Compared with the multiple key agreement protocols in the literature, the proposed protocol is more efficient and holds stronger security.

• 정보보호학회논문지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.247-257
• /
• 2016

개인정보보호법 및 개인정보 보호 관련 법률에서는 개인의 정보를 수집 이용 제공하고자 할 때 이용자의 동의를 얻도록 규정하고 있다. 이에 따라 금융회사에서는 고객으로부터 개인정보 이용 동의서를 징구하여 고객의 개인정보 이용 동의를 얻고 있다. 또한 정부차원에서 고객의 실질적인 동의 의사 확인을 위해 거래별, 상품별 동의서 양식을 다양화하고 필수항목과 선택항목을 구별하는 등의 동의서 양식 개선 노력을 하고 있다. 그러나 아직 금융회사에서는 동의의 본질에 충실하지 못해 동의의 효력을 얻기 어렵거나 동의 의사를 판단하기 어려운 동의서들을 수집 보관하는 사례가 발생한다. 이에 본 연구에서는 개인정보처리자인 사업자의 개인정보 이용 동의 처리 과정에서 개인정보보호 관련 법률을 준수하고 정보주체에게 동의의 본질에 충실한 동의를 유도하기 위한 동의서 검증 절차를 추가한 발전된 개인정보 이용 동의 구현 모델을 제안한다.

• 유통과학연구
• /
• 제16권11호
• /
• pp.37-45
• /
• 2018

Purpose - Recently, large quantities of factors have affected the signing of the Free Trade Agreement between two countries. Due to this background, this paper selects South Korea as an example to explore the determinants of Free Trade Agreement from Asian countries. Research design, data, and methodology - A cross sectional data of 2016 will be employed and some variables such as real income and GDP will be used to run an empirical analysis under the linear probability model, probit model and logit model. Results - The findings show that the Asian countries' exchange rate regime, real income, GDP and so forth can increase the probability of signing the Free Trade Agreement with Asian countries. Conversely, the distance can lower the probability of signing the Free Trade Agreement with Asian countries. Meanwhile, although the Asian countries' import, consumer price index and population also can affect the probability of signing the Free Trade Agreement with Asian countries, the estimated coefficients are not statistically significant at 5% level. Conclusions - According to the empirical results, this paper provides a new scope for South Korea's government to sign the Free Trade Agreement with other Asian countries.

• 한국유기농업학회지
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.425-436
• /
• 2019

This paper analyzed the necessity of family management agreement in management succession and the intention of signing it. To this end, 139 management successors were surveyed and the factors affecting the family management agreement were analyzed. The main analysis results are as follows. Firstly, Priority in the management agreement system was the highest participation in decision-making with 34.5 percent, or 19 people, followed by the sharing of management roles and the distribution of revenues and expenses with 27.3 percent, respectively. Secondly, An analysis of the difference between cohabitation with parents and the need for a family management agreement showed that 70.2 percent of successors and 51.7 percent of non-residents shared the opinion that a family management agreement is needed. Finally, according to the analysis, the lower the age of the heirs, the higher the willingness to sign the family management agreement, the more likely the successor who graduated from a related university in the agricultural industry, and the more likely the successor who is a farmer in an urban area, the more willing he is to sign the family management agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2021

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism based on the parties' agreement to resolve any disputes parties may have by arbitration rather than litigation in court. Parties' consent to arbitrate, which must be manifest in the parties' arbitration clause or agreement, is the foundation for arbitration; thus, the language of an arbitration agreement is often of utmost importance in determining the intent of the parties regarding many aspects of arbitration proceedings, such as, the scope of arbitral proceedings, arbitral seat, and authority of arbitral tribunals, among others. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) that ambiguity in arbitration agreement as to availability of class arbitration should be resolved in favor of individual arbitration, and therefore, class arbitration would be precluded. Such holding was met with criticism by four separate dissenting opinions, in which the dissenting Justices have disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the arbitration agreement at issue, as well as, its rejection of application of state law in resolving contractual ambiguity. This article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision and reviews the Court's approach in construction of the arbitration agreement. Nevertheless, because the Supreme Court declined to provide clear guidelines as to precisely what contractual basis is required to permit class arbitration, either silence or ambiguity in arbitration agreements will be resolved by disallowing class arbitration.