• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.89-120
• /
• 2006

If the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue in international business transactions, it is the key point how we shall determine the applicable law by national rules for the conflict of laws, or by other methods. The argument in determination of the applicable law to the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement is related to regal nature of the arbitration agreement. As there are foreign factors in international arbitration, therefore we must consider such an aspect. Besides, we have to examine whether the general theory of contract is universally applicable to the arbitration agreement. Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the arbitration agreement. However, it is a difficult problem to recognize the applicable law chosen by the parties, whether it is based on any regal standard(for example New York Convention or the private international law or the essential quality of the arbitration agreement). In the light of the actual transactions, when the parties don't make a choice of the applicable law expressly, it will finally come down to presuming the party's implied intent. Nevertheless, finding the implied intent is a difficult problem. Some argue that we shall presume the choice of applicable law by an objective standard such as a place of arbitration, to prevent too much expansion of the scope of the recognition. But we need to review that this interpretation harmonizes with the principle of party autonomy. Especially, if we desire to detect the vital point where it is most closely linked to the arbitration agreement, we have to inquire how we will decide such a relation by means of any standard. However, as the existing Arbitration Act doesn't offer the solution to these issues, therefore we have to settle these problems through the development of adjudications and theories.

• Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.263-271
• /
• 2004

This article presents a new measure of chance-corrected interobserver agreement among multivariate ratings of many observers. Modifying an approach by Berry and Mielke, a new agreement measure is proposed. The important modificaton is to use the volume of simplex composed of data points as the disagreement masure. The proposed measure accounts agreement for multivariate interval observations among many observers. Hypothetical and real-life data sets are analyzed for illustrative purpose.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.7
• /
• pp.108-121
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This paper studies whether the CISG is applicable to the arbitration agreement when the validity of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue. To make the study clear, it limits the cases assuming that the governing law of the main contract is the CISG and the arbitration agreement is inserted in the main contract as a clause. Also, this paper discusses only substantive and formal validity of the arbitration agreement because the CISG does not cover the questions of the parties' capacity and arbitrability of the dispute. Design/methodology - This paper is based on scholarly writings and cases focusing on the principle of party autonomy, formation of contract and the doctrine of separability to discuss characteristic of arbitration agreement. In analyzing the cases, it concentrates on the facts and reasonings that show how the relative regulations and rules are interpreted and applied. Findings - The findings of this paper are; regarding substantive validity of arbitration agreement, the courts and arbitral tribunals consider general principles of law for the contract and the governing law for the main contract. In relation to formal validity of arbitration agreement, the law at the seat of arbitration or the law of the enforcing country are considered as the governing law in preference to the CISG because of the recognition and enforcement issues. Originality/value - This paper attempts to find the correlation between the CISG and the arbitration agreement. It studies scholars' writing and cases which have meaningful implication on this issue. By doing so, it can provide contracting parties and practitioners with some practical guidelines about the governing law for the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, it can help them to reduce unpredictability that they may confront regarding this issue in the future.

• Communications of the Korean Mathematical Society
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.611-621
• /
• 2005

This paper introduces an ID based authenticated two pass key agreement protocol of Smart[4] which used the Weil pairing. We propose other an ID based authenticated two pass key agreement protocol which using the Tate Pairing. We will compare protocol of Smart with this protocol.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

This article discusses the validity of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that provides arbitration as one of several dispute resolution methods. The Supreme Court has held selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that is conditional invalidity since the judgement of 2003Da318 decided on Aug. 22, 2003: In the following judgements of 2004Da42166 decided on Nov. 11, 2004 and 2005Da12452 decided on May 27, 2005, the Court stated that the selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that stipulates to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation would be valid as an effective arbitration agreement only if a party elects and proceeds an arbitration proceeding and another party responses to the arbitration proceeding without any objection. The definition of arbitration agreement, the formation of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement, the summary of relative judgements and academic theories will be reviewed in order to examine the appropriateness of the series of judgements of the Supreme Court. Based on such reviews, this article will investigate the adequacy of the Supreme Court judgements from the perspectives of i) the principle of party autonomy, ii) the structure of dispute resolution methods, iii) legal provisions of Arbitration Act, iv) legal stability, and v) the policy to revitalize the use of arbitration. At conclusion, this article will suggest the change of precedents of the Supreme Court's judgements with regard to the selective arbitral agreement.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.245-262
• /
• 2007

On 25 December 2000, China and Vietnam signed the Agreement on the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas, EEZs and Continental Shelves in the Tonkin Gulf. Three and a half years after signature, in June 2004, China and Vietnam both ratified a maritime boundary agreement for the Tonkin Gulf (Beibu Gulf) and the agreement entered into force. A potentially complicating factor in the negotiation process was likely to have been the status of the Sino-French Agreement of 1887. In the end, the agreement reached indicated that even if the status of the Sino-French Agreement of 1887 was part of the negotiations, both sides eventually agreed that it would not have an impact on the delimitation of maritime zones in the Gulf of Tonkin. Another crucial issue was the impact of the islands, in particular, the Vietnamese controlled Bach Long Vi Island and Con Co Island. Especially, Bach Long Vi Island was entitled to a half suite of maritime zones (3n.m. EEZ) and would impact the tracing of a line of equidistance in the Gulf of Tonkin. Minor as the point might be, Con Co Island also would have an impact for it would play a fixing terminal point for the boundary. Article 7 of the agreement is about minerals and hydrocarbons of cross-boundary deposit, and if any single geophysical structure of oil and gas or other mineral deposits should straddle the demarcation line, an agreement is to be reached on the development of the structure or deposit and on the most effective manner to equally share the profits resulting from the development.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2000

Fisheries Agreements among Korea, China, and Japan, for the effective management of fisheries resources and protection of fisheries disputes, have been processed in a manner to conclude interim arrangements those are effective prior to the final demarcation of the maritime delimitation which often requires much time to settle among the relevant states, Based on this understanding, Korea, China, and Japan, had proceeded their mutual fisheries agreement ; and, two fisheries agreements, between Korea-Japan and China-Japan, have already entered into force on 22 January 1999 and on 1 June 2000, respectively. Lastly fisheries negotiation between Korea and China has been concluded in order to make it effective on 30 June 2001. As Korean fisheries have already experienced the impacts after the entry into force of Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement, it is inevitable that the likewise will also be true for the Korea-china Fisheries Agreement. The results of fisheries negotiation should minimize the loss by ensuring Korean flagged vessels' fishing rights to the maximum level in the counterpart's waters, and to maximize our counterpart's loss by restricting its vessels' fishing rights to the minimum level in our waters. However, such goals are almost unreachable in an intergovernmental negotiation. On this ground, regardless of the results, the negotiation is highly criticized from all the interested realms of the society. First, this study reviews the negotiation process ana subject matters of the fisheries agreement, and then evaluates the disputed items issued by academic, political, and industry areas in an international law and fisheries perspective. After the entry into farce of fisheries agreement, various activities should be accommodated as future tasks, such as the adjustments of the domestic fisheries structure, the reorganization of the resource management based fisheries structure, the construction of EEz large surveillance system, and the construction of the multilateral fisheries cooperation system Through an earlier implementation of those tasks, the Korean fisheries will be better prepared in minimizing the predicted impacts once the Korea-China Fisheries Agreement becomes effective.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.43-62
• /
• 2016

The international arbitration system has been a useful method of settling disputes arising from international transactions. Arbitration provides the opportunity for the parties to choose a fair and neutral forum and to participate in the selection of the decision maker and the rules that will be applied. Because arbitration is a creature of contract, there is no agreement to arbitrate if there is no contract. An arbitration clause should be designed to fit the circumstances of the transaction and the parties' needs. The parties draft an arbitration clause with insufficient attention to the transaction to which it relates. Insufficient attention to arbitration agreement has caused the delay of arbitration procedure or even the inability to arbitrate. Therefore the parties pay sufficient attention to the underlying transaction so that the arbitration clause can be tailored to their particular requirements and to possible disputes that may reasonably be anticipated.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.225-261
• /
• 2005

Under Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall supply (a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof and (b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In addition, if the arbitral award or arbitration agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, and the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. In a case where a Vietnamese company which had obtained a favorable arbitral award in Vietnam applied for recognition and enforcement of a Vietnamese arbitral award before a Korean court, the recent Korean Supreme Court Judgment (Docket No. 2004 Da 20180. 'Judgment') rendered on December 12, 2004 has alleviated the document requirements as follows : The Judgment held that (i) the party applying for recognition andenforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not have to strictly comply with the document requirements when the other party does not dispute the existence and the content of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement and that (ii) in case the translation submitted to the court does not satisfy the requirement of Article 4, the court does not have to dismiss the case on the ground that the party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award has failed to comply with the translation requirement under Article 4, and instead may supplement the documents by obtaining an accurate Korean translation from an expert translator at the expense of the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In this regard, the author fully supports the view of the Judgment. Finally, the Judgment held that, even though the existence of a written arbitration agreement was not disputed at the arbitration, there was no written arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and wenton to repeal the judgment of the second instance which admitted the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, the author does not share the view of the Judgment. The author believes that considering the trend of alleviating the formality requirement of arbitration agreements under Article 2 of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court could have concluded that there was a written arbitration agreement because the defendant participated in thearbitration proceedings in Vietnam without disputing the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement. Or the Supreme Court should have taken the view that the defendant was no longer permitted to dispute the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement because otherwise it would be clearly against the doctrine of estoppel.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2016

There is a need for disputes in sports to be settled by arbitration rather than a court ruling, taking the unique characteristics of sports into consideration. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). A dispute resolution system is regarded as: an arbitrator is selected by the agreement between the parties, and a binding decision is made, which the parties obey, consequently resulting in a final resolution. To resolve a dispute upon arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement upon the free will of the parties. In relation to the arbitration agreement, however, there are some cases in which sports organizations have an arbitration clause in the articles of association, regulations or player registration application that call for settling disputes by arbitration. In such cases, the validity of the arbitration agreement may create doubt whether or not this sort of arbitration has been made by mutual agreement. Consequently this is required to be legally examined. The activities of a sports organization are recognized as part of private autonomy, and they include even the rights that establish regulations or rules. Nonetheless, the powers that such sport organizations are able to establish are not allowed without limit. However, sports activities and autonomy shall be protected as themselves. Therefore, if we give priority to arbitration upon the independent arbitrator and fair process by establishing an independent arbitral organization in charge of sports disputes to handle the effective resolution of disputes and protect sports autonomy and ask for a court decision if one party disobeys the arbitration, or the sports arbitration prepositive principle, it seems helpful to resolve the unfairness of compulsory jurisdiction and the clause for sports arbitration and protect the player's right of choice and of claims for trial.