• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.461-494
• /
• 1999

This study is to analyse the applicability of governing law in multi-party contractual relationship of letter of credit. And this study is also to suggest the limits of the possibility of applicable law in multi-party contract. The contract of letter of credit constitutes complex relationship, i.e., applicant -beneficiary, applicant-issuing bank, issuing bank-intermediary bank ect. The law applicable to letter of credit should not use a singular governing law in all credit transaction as sales contract. To solve these problems, the author analysed the law applicable to the credit under multi-party contractual relationship as follow : (1) the principle of party autonomy (2) In the absence of express agreement with regard to the law applicable to the contract, lex loci contractus, lex loci solutionis, the law intended by the parties, the law with which contract is most closely connected. Accordingly, when attempting to ascertain the law governing the credit, it should be borne in mind that the credit involves several contractual relationships. I would like to conclude as follows: 1. The contract between the applicant and the Issuing bank is to be governed by the law of the country where the contract is made, and in which the bank carries on business and has issued the credit. 2. When it comes to the beneficiary-Intermediary bank relationship the following rule is given : The liability of an intermediary bank to the seller is governed by the law the country where the intermediary bank is operating if it is acting as principal. If, however, it is acting as agent(advising bank), it will be the law of the country where his principal is situate. 3. The contract between the beneficiary and the Issuing bank is governed by the law of the country where the payment is to be performed. 4. The contract between the Issuing bank and Intermediary bank is governed by 1) the law of the issuing bank is applicable if the intermediary bank only advises the credit, 2) the law of the issuing bank is applicable but if the intermediary bank makes payment, accepts or negotiates drafts against the tender of the documents, i.e., act as the bank dffecting the payment., 3) the law of the confirming bank is applicable if the irrevocable letter of credit is confirmed by the intermediary bank

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the party's autonomy principle and the applicable law to the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the arbitrability of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the contracting ability of the arbitration agreement, and the applicable law to the method of the arbitration agreement. If no choice of law is made by the parties with respect to the arbitration agreement-which is the stand situation-the validity of the agreement may have to decided under its proper law, or under the law of the place of arbitration, or the law of the place of enforcement. If the subject matter is not arbitrable, the arbitration agreement remains without effect. The rules determining arbitrability may differ from one country to another, from one legal system to another. If a party is lacking capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked. This principle is laid down in the New Yark Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The validity of an arbitration agreement sometimes also depends on the form in which it is made. Article II. 2 of the New York Convention states that the term 'agreement in writing' shall include an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties of contained in exchange of letters or telegrams.

• 수산경영론집
• /
• 제43권1호
• /
• pp.63-74
• /
• 2012

The Korean Conflict of Laws Act recently incorporated much of the European Union's recent revision in "EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980)"(hereinafter Rome Convention). With the revision of Rome Convention applied to contractual obligations,"Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)"(hereinafter Rome I) has taken effect on December 2009. Before the effectivation of Rome I, "Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)"(hereinafter Rome II) has come into effect on January 2009. This means the revision of certain rules and its practical implications need an in-depth study on governing law rules under Rome I which provides newly effected governing laws applicable to contractual obligations. Moreover, uniform choice of law rules on non-contractual obligations needs to focus especially on marine insurance contract. Where policy assignment and subrogation causes, how to decide the governing law which will be applied to the insurer as a third party? This article attempts to analyze emerging legal issues in legal regimes determining choice of law, especially those in international marine insurance contracts. This will help Korean practitioners to be dialed in legal affairs under English Law as the governing law in their contracts.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.151-182
• /
• 2006

The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) established UNIDROIT principles, which could be applicable as international unified rules. The UNIDROIT Principles plays the role of interpreting and complementing CISG and functions as a law applicable to international commercial disputes. As shown by cases of practical application so far, the principles are expected to be applied frequently to international commercial arbitration in the future. In the situation that there is no internationally unified judicature, it is necessary to promote rational dispute resolution and legal stability through arbitration by adopting the UNIDROIT Principles of Lex Mercatoria as a governing law of international commercial contracts. In conclusion, UNIDROIT principles, along with CISG, are expected to playa great role as the applicable law of international commercial contracts and as standards for resolving international commercial disputes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.117-136
• /
• 2007

Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the international private law and the international commercial arbitration. The purpose of this article is to make research on the party's autonomy principle for the international commercial arbitral awards. For this purpose ist to analyse regal issue the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility of $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$ relating to the party autonomy. In this Article ist dealt with Art. 29 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act in comparison with Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure provides equally. "The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with such 'rules of law' as chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules." The term 'rule of law' used to describe the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$. Unlike Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para.1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Act, Art. 29(1) of the Korean Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with the 'law' chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. However the majority view in Korea takes the position that the term 'law' should be interpreted broadly so as to encompass 'rules of law' at UNCITRAL Model Law and the German Code of Civil Procedure.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제44호
• /
• pp.801-828
• /
• 2013

국제카르텔분쟁의 경우 적용실질법의 영역에서는 전세계적으로 이른바 효과이론이 제정법 내지는 판례법의 대세를 이루고 있다. 그런데 구체적 적용에 있어서 유럽방식은 적어도 피고의 주소지에서는 손해 전체를 청구할 수 있는데 반하여, 미국법원에서는 미국에서 발생된 손해에 대해서만 배상을 받을 수 있게 되어 원고의 권리실현에 미흡하다. 이와 같은 관점에서 이 글은 불법행위에 관한 준거법을 규정함에 있어서 유형별 특칙을 두지 않고 모든 불법행위에 하나의 연결점을 규정하고 있는 국제사법이 경쟁제한금지위반행위에 적절하게 대처하고 있지 못하고 있다고 진단하여 국제사법 개정의 필요성을 제기하였다. 구체적인 제안내용으로 시장침해지를 원칙적인 연결점으로 하고, 피고에게 직접적이고 본질적인 침해가 발생한 곳에서 여러 나라에서 입은 손해 전체를 청구할 수 있는 선택권을 제공하여 국제카르텔 사건의 경우 이른바 모자이크원칙에 따른 문제점을 해소하고자 하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.39-59
• /
• 2013

This article discusses the use of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts in international commercial arbitration. Because the Principles are designed specifically for cross-border commercial transactions, the use of the Principles avoids many of the legal rules that would govern from otherwise applicable domestic law that do not reflect the expectations of parties in international trade.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2015

Arbitration clauses or institutional arbitration rules rarely, if ever, specify the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. A wide range of laws may thus govern this question, such as the law at the place of arbitration, the law where the agreement or the award is enforced or the law of the main contract between the parties. It is also conceivable that international uniform law or soft law may play a role. Tribunals and courts seized with this question must consequently decide which of these various laws shall apply to verify the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. This paper picks up on this controversially debated conflict of laws issue. At times, this debate is characterized by a strong divide between arbitration and international trade law practitioners. But are the different approaches really leading to diverging results in arbitral practice?