• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.495-522
• /
• 2016

The Mongolia is one of the highly impressive potential developing countries in Asia according to open the economic market. Since early 1990 as the falling apart from Russian union, Mongolia has tried to developing economic status with plentiful stocked natural resources in their country. The Mongolia has been accepting the modernizing their legal systems including national amended law of arbitration 2003 which was based in the 'UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985' to harmonize with the international arbitration trends. However, UNCITRAL council announced the adapting members countries excluding Mongolia caused by the inappropriate international standard conditions. As the foreign business partners with Mongolian, it is not easy to agree a site in Mongolia for the place of arbitration on their disputes settlement cause by the weak confidence and precarious interruption under the arbitration processing and enforcement of award on the uncertain law of arbitration on their law of arbitration. Recently, the Mongolian government intends to revise their arbitration law to comply to newly UNCITRAL Model Law in 2006 revision for improving the putting confidence and promoting the choosing arbitration on the place of commercial disputes in Mongolia. It is the point to considering in this article to compare to the problems and alternative ways to the legal and practical arbitration services for reliant and confirming arbitration system in Mongolia for the business parties of Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.95-107
• /
• 2017

Mongolian government enacted the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law to modernize the practice of commercial arbitration. Nevertheless, the Foreign Trade Arbitration Trade Law fell short on a number of fronts and arbitration itself remained a distant second option to litigation within Mongolia. Law on Arbitration of 2003 aimed to modernize the Mongolian arbitration framework so that it would mirror the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. At the same time, the Law on Arbitration 2003 made a conscious decision to deviate from international norms with respect to certain aspects in order to accommodate for the unique circumstances and characteristics of Mongolia. For example, unlike its UNCITRAL counterpart, the Law on Arbitration of 2003 did not include an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In that sense, the Law on Arbitration of 2003 was a resounding success and a drastic improvement on the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law. These factors convinced the Mongolian government to once again revise its arbitration law. This process, which started in 2008 with the help of foreign law firms and institutions, ultimately culminated in the Law of Arbitration of 2017. The chief objective of the Law of Arbitration of 2017 was to more closely adhere to preexisting international norms on arbitration such as the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and there is no question that Mongolia has succeeded in doing so. This article thus concludes by explaining some of the noteworthy improvements made by the 2017 revisions, and by noting that Mongolia is now equipped with a truly international legal framework for arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2016

Recently, China has brought many political, economical, and ideological changes in order to complete the "socialistic market economy." In terms of legal system, they make much effort to seek compatibility and stability of law and order. China recognizes that the breakdown of corruption, which is rampant in society, is an essential short-cut for national development. To realize anti-corruption reformation, it strengthens the supervision of relatives and close officials of high-ranking government officials. Recently, China has suffered from expanded trade disputes internationally and has also experienced severe management-labor conflicts domestically due to economic recession. From 2012 onward, civil lawsuit and other litigations have increased sharply. Also, they face severe conflicts in the land system. It is expected that many disputes arise due to speculation on rural housing. Meanwhile, Mongolia expands the size of trade with Korea in mutual cooperation since their diplomatic relation in 1990 by entering more than 20 treaties and agreements. As Mongolia has rich natural resources and Korea is equipped with advanced science and technology, the two countries have opportunities to develop mutually beneficial cooperative relations. Recently, the arbitration system has attracted attention instead of litigation as a means of dispute settlement in line with the expansion of trade between Korea and Mongolia. This study would be helpful to figure out desirable methods for dispute settlements in case of trade disputes among Korean companies that would advance into China and Mongolia.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.55-76
• /
• 2013

This study aims to analyze the main features of Mongolian arbitration system compared with Korean Arbitration Law which was revised under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law. On the basis of this comparative study, certain differences are suggested: First, the environment of Mongolian arbitration is still insufficient in terms of its operation and usage at the international level. Second, the Mongol National Arbitration Court has established Ad-hoc Arbitration Rules and has promoted Ad-hoc Arbitration although it is an institutional arbitration organization. Third, the arbitration objects are defined as the types of tangible and intangible assets in Mongolia which are different from those of the Korean Arbitration Law. Accordingly, court and officer disputes, family disputes, labor-management relations, and criminal matters are covered by the arbitration objects. Fourth, Mongol Arbitration Law specifies the following persons disqualified for arbitrator appointment: the member of the Constitutional Court, judge, procurator, inquiry officer, investigator, court decision enforcement officer, attorney, or notary who has previously rendered legal service to any party of the disputes, and any officials who are prohibited by laws to be engaged in positions above the scope of their duties. Fifth, the arbitrator selection and appointment criteria should be documented, and the arbitrator should have the ability to resolve the disputes independently and fairly and achieve concord from both parties. Sixth, if there is no agreement between the parties, the arbitration language should be Mongolian, and the arbitral tribunal has no power to decide on it. Seventh, despite the agreement for a documentary hearing between the parties, there should be provided opportunities for an oral hearing if either of the parties requires it. Eighth, if the parties do not understand the language of the arbitration, the parties can directly ask the translation service. They should also keep secrets in the process of arbitration. Ninth, the cancellation of arbitral award is allowed by the application of the parties, not by the authority of the court. Except for the nine differences above, the Mongolian arbitration system is similar to that of the Korean Arbitration Law. This paper serves to contribute to the furtherance in trade relationship between Mongolia and Korea after the rapid and efficient resolution of disputes.