• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.73-97
• /
• 2003

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2014

This article examines the regime for the recognition, enforcement and execution of arbitral awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID). The effectiveness of international arbitration depends on the degree of finality of the award and the ease with which the award may be enforced by the prevailing part. The ICSID Convention provides for rigorous finality and seeks to establish optimal preconditions for the enforcement of awards in manner that distinguishes ICSID from other international arbitral regimes. As with other classes of disputes subject to judical or arbitral jurisdiction, most ICSID cases settle. In the cases that do proceed to award, participants must understand what will happen if the losing party fails to comply with the award voluntarily and the prevailing party takes the award through phases known as "recognition", "enforcement" and "execution". Investors should assess possible execution before finalizing investments and certainly before they initiate collection proceedings on ICSID awards. An investor with a monetary award in hand should attempt to locate assets of the losing State and then obtain comparative law advice to identify jurisdictions that allow attachment of at least certain categories of sovereign assets.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2022

This paper studies legal regulation of the public policy exception in the Russian Federation and domestic judicial practice on the issue. It reviews current legislation and analyzes a number of recent court cases where an arbitral award rendered by a foreign arbitration body was refused recognition and enforcement based on public policy violation. By doing so, it contributes to the knowledge on the concept of public policy in the Russian legal system and how public policy can affect the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on its territory. The review of court cases demonstrates different aspects of how the public policy exception can be applied by Russian arbitrazh courts. Such decisions can provide a clearer picture of the kinds of situation that can lead to invoking the public policy clause by the court. Also, it is of practical value as persons preparing to file a claim or to be a defendant in a Russian court can be required to present existing court decisions in support of their claim or defence.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.176-191
• /
• 2023

Purpose - When recovered through arbitration a contractual penalty that is disproportionately high can become grounds for challenging an arbitral award or an obstacle to its enforcement within Russian jurisdiction. This article investigates how violation of the principle of proportionality can affect the enforcement and challenging of arbitral awards in Russia. Based on the examination of the current legislation, along with the analysis of recent court cases on the subject, the ultimate object of this article is to discern practical recommendations for Korean practitioners who are looking to challenge and/or enforce arbitral awards in Russian courts. Design/methodology - The research process included the reviewing of current Russian legislation conducted in concurrence with academic literature review, searching and analyzing recent court cases where the relevant legal provisions and concepts were applied, and formulating practical implications of the research at its final stage. Findings - Through its relation to the principle of fairness/justice the authors establish the connection between the principle of proportionality and the public policy of Russia. Analysis of recent court cases showed two conflicting trends of whether a disproportionate penalty can be considered a public policy violation. The authors offer practical recommendations on how to substantiate a relevant claim regarding contractual penalty reduction by the court, depending on the desired outcome. Originality/value - The article contains an up-to-date summary of the legal provisions on the principle of proportionality of civil liability in Russia and identifies the most recent trends in court practice on the issue that is not covered by existing studies.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권3호
• /
• pp.31-68
• /
• 2023

In recent years, French courts have decided to adopt an uncompromising stance in the fight against corruption in international arbitration. While French enforcement/annulment courts were originally conducting a limited review of arbitral awards dealing with corruption allegations on international public policy grounds, they now carry a full re-examination of such awards accepting that a corruption plea be raised for the first time before them and admitting new evidence. What is at stake, in terms of international public policy, is to define the happy medium between, on the one hand, the necessity to preserve the enforceability of international arbitral awards, and, the necessity to fight corruption. This paper presents the evolution of French case law in the past years and makes a critical assessment of the French approach by comparison with other jurisdictions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2006

Enforcement of an arbitration award is an extremely important issue in arbitration. Arbitration, as a dispute settlement process, is rendered meaningless if it is not possible to enforce an award rendered by an arbitration tribunal. On the other hand, the present international arbitration system guided by the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law is established on the dual supervision from the national courts. The nationality of the international arbitral award closely relates to the supervision of the national court, and the national court is entitled to decide the nationality of the international award in accordance with the conditions set in its own domestic law. The national court may set aside arbitral award made in its territory while the foreign court may refuge enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to its own law and international convention to which it is a party. The conditions set in the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China are in agreement with those set in the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Chinese national court is entitled to set aside international awards made in China in accordance with the Chinese Law. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the Chinesr practice on the revocation of international commercial arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.71-89
• /
• 2019

When the host states do not comply with the investor-state arbitral awards voluntarily, it is difficult for the successful claimants to seek the enforcement of arbitral awards against the host state because of the doctrine of state immunity. This raises a question whether the investors might be able to seize the assets of the state-owned enterprises, as well as those of the host states. The investors might consider the properties held by state-owned enterprises as an attractive target especially when it has been established that the host state is responsible for the act of its state-owned enterprise. In such case, the investor might argue that the close relationship between the state-owned enterprise and the host state has already been recognized so that the commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise could be subject to attachment. On the other hand, the host state might argue that the state-owned entity exists separately from the state, and thus its assets cannot be equated with those of the host state. Moreover, even if this argument is not accepted and, as a result, the properties of the state-owned entity is equated with those of the host state, the host state might still be able to argue that non-commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise are immune from execution.