• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• pp.31-56
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this thesis lies on building the foundation for the further activation of trade among the Northeast Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and North Korea through an analytical comparison of their arbitration systems. Further activation of trade cannot be reached without previously building safety measures on the negotiation of exports, the control on defective imported merchandise, the returns on investments, and the stable management of businesses. Throughout this thesis an analytical comparison of these five countries' most important areas on arbitration will be carried out. These areas are the arbitration laws and organizations; the structures of the laws; scope of arbitration; form of arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitratiors, place of arbitration, hearing, court assistance in taking evidence, governing law, decision making by panel of arbitrators, form and contents of awards, effective of award, recourse against award, recognition and enforcement of awards. etc. It was found in each of the areas cases to be identical, similar or verydifferent; also, cases unable to arbitrate. This phenomenon was found to occur due to the differences in political and economic systems and perception of arbitration among these countries. Additionally, this thesis points out what should each country do for its integration. It is also suggested the organization of a common arbitration research body to continue the efforts for raising the awareness, building trust, and mutual recognition among the countries to ultimately create a common arbitration system. Lastly, it is a personal will that this thesis will serve as the starting point for in depth researches in each of the presented areas.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2010

From the review of Korean arbitration systems with the comparison of those of other countries, we can summarize some issues to be tackled as follows: First, Korean arbitration system started with the purpose of export promotion. This may be the main reason that various domestic disputes have not been resolved by arbitration. Second, the Korean Arbitration Law applies to private disputes. The Law's arbitration scope is wider than that of China and France, but narrower than that of the U.S.A. that encompasses a variety of disputes in the filed of consumer, labor, medical services, patents, etc. Third, active judges or public officials in Korea can not be arbitrator and there is no arbitration court. However, if chief judge allows the necessity, court's judges in the UK can be arbitrator with the mutual agreement of the parties and also arbitration system is operated in the court. Fourth, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB), the only representative institution for arbitration in Korea, is under the Ministry of Knowledge Economy(MKE). This makes it difficult for the KCAB to handle other disputes related to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. Fifth, as mentioned, the KCAB is the unique institution for arbitration by the Law in Korea, while other countries allow have a diversity of arbitration agencies such as maritime arbitration organization, consumer arbitration institution, arbitration court, etc. Therefore, we suggest some ideas to expand the arbitration's area of coverage in Korea as follows: First, there should be more active policies that promote various domestic disputes to be settled by the arbitration system. Second, it is quite needed to expand the scope of arbitration to cover many disputes in the fields of consumer, labor, medical service, advertising, fair trade, etc. Third, there should be discussions to allow court judges as arbitrator and to introduce the arbitration court. Fourth, the KCAB should strengthen its status and roles as general arbitration organization to overcome the limited scope of commercial disputes. For this, there should be the strong support and coordination among the MKE and other government agencies. Fifth, to reduce the burden of the court's complicated and expensive procedures, more efficient disputes resolution systems should be established on the basis of the parties' free will. Each central government agency should streamline the legal barriers to allow industrial organizations under its control to establish their own or joint arbitration system with the KCAB.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2007

The International Chamber of Commerce has been the world's leading organization in the field of international commercial dispute resolution. Established in 1923 as the arbitration body of ICC, the International Court of Arbitration has pioneered international commercial arbitration as it is known today. The ICC International Court of Arbitration is the world's foremost institution in the resolution of international business disputes. While most arbitration institutions are regional or national in scope, the ICC Court is truly international. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in ICC Rules of Arbitration as follows; First, before the actual merits of the case can be addressed, the Arbitral Tribunal must first draw up the Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference should include the particulars listed in the ICC Rules. Apart from the full names and description of the parties and arbitrators, the place of arbitration and a summary of the parties' respective claims, they contain particulars concerning the applicable procedural rules and any other provisions required to make the Award enforceable at law Second, the Scrutiny is a fundamental feature of ICC arbitration and is one that distinguishes it from the other major international arbitration rules. The scrutiny system has two aspects ; the first is to identify or modify the defects of form, while the second is to draw the arbitrators' attention to points of substance. Third, as soon as practicable, the Court fixes an advance on costs intended to cover the estimated fees and expenses of the arbitrators, as well as the administrative expenses of ICC. Specially, the advance on costs fixed by the Court shall be payable in equal shares by the Claimant and Respondent. Finally, the parties are also free to select the arbitrator or arbitrators of their choice. The Court or the Secretary General confirms arbitrators nominated by the parties. Taking a step forward, to upgrade the quality of the award of KCAB, it is desirable to consider how to incorporate the main contents of the ICC Arbitration into Korea Commercial Arbitration Rules.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권2호
• /
• pp.177-189
• /
• 2020

The dispute settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is in great peril. The Appellate Body has ceased to function last December as the United States has blocked the appointment of new Appellate Body members since 2017. The focus of this study is on the examination of US's discontent on the Appellate Body and various efforts to reform the Appellate Body. In a recent report, the US Trade Representative raises its concerns on the Appellate Body including 90 days mandatory deadline, transitional rules for outgoing Appellate Body members, scope of appeal, advisory opinions, precedent, recommendation, and overreach without offering any viable solutions. Some of WTO members and experts proposed several Appellate Body reform measures but agreement between WTO members is unlikely in a foreseeable future. Alternative dispute settlement mechanisms should be seriously considered such as interim appeal arbitration arrangements, separate dispute settlement mechanisms for trade remedies, unilateral retaliatory measures without WTO authorization. Rules-based multilateral dispute settlement system is imperative to small open economies like Korea. The Korean government should actively participate in Appellate Body reform discussions with other WTO members to keep the WTO dispute settlement system from collapsing.