• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.111-129
• /
• 2018

The foundation of arbitration is the arbitration agreement between parties. If no agreement to arbitrate exists, the parties should not send to arbitrate their disputes. In the United States, there are no provisions as to arbitrability under the Federal Arbitration Act. Before a court can enforce arbitration, it must first determine arbitrability. The general presumption is that the issue of arbitrability should be resolved by the courts. The question of whether parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration raises a question of arbitrability which is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably have provided otherwise. Determining if the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute involves inquiries into whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims, and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review how to settle the issue of arbitrability in the U.S. federal courts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.99-123
• /
• 2018

Korean businesses engaging in transactions with U.S. entities are increasingly favoring arbitration clauses to address unexpected disputes. How best ought the parties' arbitration contractual terms be drafted to avoid lengthy, protracted and expensive legal disputes? Authors examine the public policy favoring arbitration through the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. Korean litigants seeking a "Motion to Compel Arbitration" rely on arbitration clauses designed to address four factors U.S. courts use to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration contract clauses. What role does U.S. state court jurisdiction hinder or help Korean businesses contracting with U.S. business entities located within certain boundaries? What is the effect of an arbitration clause that designates the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul to arbitrate? All cases analyzed entail Korean business entities. Eleven cases demonstrate the results of seeking motions to compel arbitration in U.S. courts. Three cases illustrate motions to compel arbitration drafted to use the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul. The results provide Korean businesses and legal practitioners insight into addressing the specific goals of including contractual arbitration clauses to enhance their international commercial interests in the United States.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.149-167
• /
• 2013

Arbitration is one of the prominent and widely practiced forms of Alternate Dispute Resolution. Different countries are strengthening their alternate dispute resolution mechanism, and focusing on arbitrations is a very important edge. Pakistan is in the phase of developing effective laws and policies to strengthen the process of arbitration. The Pakistan Arbitration Act of 1940 is very important to discuss and along with domestic laws the applicability of the international conventions must be discussed. This paper analyzed the situation of arbitration laws in Pakistan with respect to both the domestic laws and international laws applicable in the country.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.183-197
• /
• 2014

1. This study focuses on recent developments of trade transaction between Korea and China. The volume of trade is most rapidly increasing. There have been many items considered to ensure the proper, impartial, and rapid settlement of disputes in private laws by international arbitration. The article contains recent tendencies and proceedings of cases including place of arbitration, language, and so on. 2. The contract made between parties has led to some interpretational, legal questions. Interpretational questions rise mainly from differences of legal systems and legal questions on applying law. The characteristic features of the contract have different meanings, so some articles of the contract can be construed unlawful as a result. 3. As regards the Arbitration Act of Korea, Article 10, the Arbitration Agreement and Interim Measures by Court stipulate the following: A party to an arbitration agreement may request from a court art interim a measure of protection before or during arbitral proceedings. This article examines the application of Article 10 of the Arbitration Act of Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2017

This paper examines some questions and issues of the effect of an arbitral award, and discusses about the restriction of the trial level in other separate actions permitted under the existence of grounds of setting aside arbitral award after the amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016. Because there are no interests of litigation in the action for setting aside arbitral award due to the exclusion of res judicata by provisory clause of Article 35, filing an action for setting aside is not allowed even when the grounds of setting aside exist. If we examine the precedent on possibility of retrial for excluding the outward form of invalid judgement, we can find that the court did not approve the retrial. Therefore, the action for setting aside that which is for excluding the outward form of an arbitral award will not be allowed for filing. On the issue of whether an arbitral award having a ground for setting aside can be an object of the action for setting aside for excluding its outward form or not, the views of scholars are divided. In the case of an arbitral award that has grounds for setting aside, it could be interpreted that the arbitral award would not have a formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft). Even if there is formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft), the significance of existence of action for setting aside arbitral award under paragraph 1 of Article 36 is reduced because other actions separate from arbitration is permitted under the 2016 Act. The amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016 provides an opportunity to review the position and the role of action for setting aside the arbitral award. It also requires further studies on efficiently treating other actions separate from arbitration. Because the restriction of the trial level of other separate actions can make arbitration active by making arbitration procedures become 3 trial levels from 4 trial levels, it needs to be solved with legislative action. Specifically, if the trial starts at the stage of trial on appeal, it can utilize the strength of both the arbitration and the litigation, playing a chief role in boosting arbitration by removing the problems of action for setting aside and enabling arbitration institutes and the person interested to promote the activation of arbitration.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.117-144
• /
• 2013

After several bills for the reasonable medical dispute resolution had been proposed for over twenty years, "Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation" was eventually enacted on April 7, 2011 and came into effect from April 8, 2012. This study evaluates the achievements and results of the past year, suggesting the future improvements or tasks. The main issue of Act on Medical Dispute Mediation is Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Therefore, the success of the Act depends on the outcomes of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Although the Act has been enforced for only one year, this paper examines the outcomes of the Agency with limited materials for its development. Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency was established for rapid, fair, and effective medical dispute resolution. Thus, the evaluation of the performances of the Agency is based on the 1) rapidness, 2) fairness, and 3) effectiveness of the dispute resolution. To sum up, the system earned positive evaluations as for the rapidness and fairness, but some problems were indicated with regard to the effectiveness. As the system of medical dispute mediation and arbitration in Korea has no parallel in the world, other countries show many interests in it. The rapid and fair medical dispute resolution is of benefit in both patients and medical institutes and decreases social costs. As the Act had a difficult passage through Parliament, it should be maintained and improved continuously.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2021

General lawsuits can be chosen as a method of resolving patent disputes. However, a significant amount of time and money is wasted on litigation until the dispute is resolved. The Intellectual Property Framework Act in Korea requires the government to simplify litigation procedures and improve litigation systems to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and fairly. As a result, accurate and timely resolution of patent disputes is given importance by the Korean government. Interest in arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution is growing. Although dispute resolution through arbitration is effective, the issue of resolving patent disputes through arbitration can lead to the arbitrability of patent disputes. It is therefore necessary to examine arbitrability of patent contracts and validity disputes. Korea has made efforts to reflect the model arbitration law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for quick judicial resolution of patent disputes. Korea has also strengthened related systems for alternative resolutions. However, improving the arbitration system will necessitate a thorough examination of the systems and practices of the United States which is the country in the forefront of intellectual property. This paper examines the arbitrability of Korea's patent dispute and makes recommendations for more efficient dispute resolution system changes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2020

When a dispute or conflict occurs, standard methods for resolving them include resolution by trial or resolutions outside of courts. An alternative dispute resolution method called ADR that aims at remedying disputes instead of filing lawsuits is used commonly throughout the world, including the US and China. ADR, which is a remedy method outside of courts, includes negotiation, arbitration, or mediation between the concerned parties, and the arbitration system has several advantages. The Lemon Law is a consumer protection law of the United States that was enacted in 1975. This law prescribes that when specified quality standards are not met repeatedly due to defects in vehicles or electronic products, the manufacturer must provide exchanges or refunds to consumers. Korea also enacted a newly revised automobile management act, the Korea "Lemon Law," on January 1, 2019, which allows consumers to receive exchanges or refunds from the manufacturer if the same malfunction repeatedly occurs after purchasing a new automobile. There have recently been many cases of large fires occurring while driving import vehicles, causing huge public rage; therefore, interest is being focused on the revised automobile management act. Part 5-2 of the automobile management act was newly added to implement automobile exchange or refund arbitration systems. It is desirable to utilize the arbitration system to smoothly resolve automobile-related disputes that have recently increased significantly, and it is thus being used frequently for practical purposes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.