• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.49-76
• /
• 2017

Lex arbitri, a law that regulates arbitration procedures at arbitral seat, can be viewed as an additional procedural law. In addition, the lex arbitri refers to mandatory provision imposed by each country on arbitrators in their own territory. The reason is that the lex arbitri often relates to matters of public policy of the place of arbitration. In Korea, the LMAA terms is frequently mentioned in the shipping industry in Korea, and the LMAA terms clause is often set up in the contract between Korean companies. However, the study of the UK Arbitration Act 1996, which regulates the LMAA arbitration, is not so much in Korea. On the other hand, Lex Arbitri, a corporation that regulates mediation procedures in arbitration, can be viewed as an additional procedure. There may also be procedures that must be followed compulsorily by the Arbitration Act of Arbitration. The reason is that Lex Arbitri seems to be related to the public policy of the arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration law of the country of arbitration seat may be the most important regulations in relation to the legality of the arbitration procedure. If the proceedings of the arbitration violate the Lex Arbitri, the arbitral award may be nullified. The purpose of this study is to analyze the arbitration theory, international arbitration and Lex Arbitri, focusing on the UK Arbitration Act 1996.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2021

England is a significant base for international trade in Europe, and dispute resolution through arbitration is active. Therefore, due to the geographical relationship with the European continent, the settlement of trade transactions and disputes with European countries is one of the most essential tasks. In this regard, arbitration procedures in England have been actively used for a long time. In England, dispute resolution methods through arbitration have been developed centered on merchant groups such as guilds from the 16th century and have been actively used until today. However, the arbitration procedure also had the characteristics of the common law because there was no legislation related to arbitration. Therefore, arbitration based on common law was carried out until the first half of the 19th century. In the 'Arbitration Act 1889', two types of arbitration systems, 'common law arbitration' and 'statutory arbitration' coexisted. However, in the arbitration procedure, according to the newly enacted 'Arbitration Act 1889', the arbitration agreement was binding from the time the arbitration agreement was reached. There was a way to select an arbitrator even if it was not explicitly stipulated in the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration award was quickly enforced. Arbitration under contract was preferred over common law arbitration, where withdrawal and revocation of awards were possible. However, in response to these provisions, the England courts considered the arbitration system to deprive the courts of jurisdiction, while a strengthened judicial review of arbitration procedures was done. In particular, England unified the arbitration-related laws, which had been scattered for a long time, adopted the model law, and enacted the 'Arbitration Act 1996'. Under the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 'Arbitration Act 1996', Section 66 deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards. Section 2 of the 'Arbitration Act 1950' is inherited and used as it is. Second, it deals with the execution of arbitral awards under the New York Convention: Article 100 (New York Convention), Section 101 (Approval and Enforcement of Awards), Section 102 (Evidence Presented by a Party Seeking Recognition and Enforcement), and Section 103 (Provides Matters Concerning Rejection Recognition and Enforcement).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.71-92
• /
• 2012

The significant increase in international trade over the last few decades has been accompanied by an increase in the number of commercial disputes between Korea and India. Understanding the Indian dispute resolution system, including arbitration, is necessary for successful business operation with Indian companies. This article investigates characteristics of India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act in order to help then traders who enter into business with Indian companies to settle their disputes efficiently. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act(1996) based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976, has a number of characteristics including the following: (i) this act covers ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration (ii) parties to the arbitration agreement have no option except arbitration in case of any dispute (iii) the parties can choose their own laws, places, procedures, and arbitrators (iv) the decision of the arbitrators is final and binding (v)role of the court has been minimized and (vi) enforcement of foreign awards is recognized. However, there have been some court decisions that have not been in tune with the spirit and provisions of the Act. Therefore, Korean companies insert the KCAB's standard arbitration clause into their contracts and use India's ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) Methods to strategically resolve their disputes. Additionally, Korean companies investigate Indian companies' credit standing before entering into business relations with them.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.59-91
• /
• 2006

The Arbitration Act of Korea was promulgated in 1966. Since the promulgation of Arbitration Act of Korea, consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2002. Among the various set of amendments, those of 1999 were designed to accommodate the UNCITRAL Model Law on international Commercial Arbitration of 1985. Korea has acceded to special international conventions on dispute settlement such as the New York Convention of 1958 and the Washington Convention of 1965. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) administers the arbitration proceedings in accordance with its Arbitration Rules approved by the Korean Supreme Court. Since the establishment of the first Arbitration Rules in 1966. consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1981, 1989, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2004. The KCAB plans to enact the International Arbitration Rules, which will be available to disputing parties in addition to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In 2005, arbitration applications received at KCAB recorded a historic high at 213 cases, an increase of 22% from 175 cases in 2000. But in 2005, the total amount involved in the arbitration cases decreases to US$ 129 million, a decline of 63% from US$ 346 million in 2000. The KCAB should take the following measures for activating the commercial arbitration system: the globalization of KCAB, the advertisement of arbitration system, the security of qualified arbitrators, and the enhancement of the secretariat service. In conclusion, the KCAB should make efforts for the development of the arbitration system and for the upgrade of customer satisfaction. Moreover the KCAB should make further efforts to grow into a global arbitration institution as well as strengthening relations with international arbitration institutions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• 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).

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.343-405
• /
• 2009

This paper is to discuss essential business of hospital business. While the labor world and ILO made continuous recommendation for improvements towards the compulsory arbitration system along with the controversy over unconstitutionality of the system, the Constitutional Court ruled that the system is constitutional on December 23, 1996(90hunba19) and on May 15, 2003 (2001hunga31). Despite this decision from the Constitutional Court, there has been much controversy over whether the compulsory arbitration system infringes the rights of collective action against the principle of trade union & labor relations adjustment which allows Commissioner of the Labor Relations Commission to decide on submission of arbitration by virtue of his/her authority in case where industrial disputes take place in the essential public-service businesses. The revision on the above provision was closely examined from the year 2003 and an agreement was made on the abolition of the compulsory arbitration system and the introduction of essential business with a grand compromise among labor unions, employers and the government on September 11, 2006 followed by revision(Essential business system enacted on January 1, 2008) of the Trade Union & Labor Relations Adjustment Act on December 30 in the same year. Accordingly, in order to perform the essential business, parties to labor relations must have an agreement or obtain a decision by the Labor Relations Commission before taking industrial actions. This paper firstly examined the concept of essential public-service businesses and essential business, legal meaning of essential business, procedures for making agreement and decision and legal effects. Secondly it intensively explored a theory against the principle of the legality which was raised from some part of society. In other words, it is claimed that a theory against the principle of the legality is not consistent with the rule of legislation and some abstract wording is against void for vagueness doctrine because part of crime constitution requirements is delegated to the Presidential Decree or to consultation among parties to labor relations. But analysis on the rule of legislation and void for vagueness doctrine reflected in the decision by the Constitutional Court led that argument for a theory against the principle of the legality is not reasonable. Close examination was done on a formal act of essential business agreement and necessity of prior agreement before submission of decision to the Labor Relations Commission which might have difficulties in performing work. In addition, an example agreement on hospital essential business is attached to help you understand this paper better.