• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

Cross-border consumer disputes are on the increase as cross-border trade between consumers and businesses continues to grow. Cross-border consumer disputes are difficult to solve, because there are different languages, laws and institutions between the parties. These consumer disputes can be solved more easily by Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in comparison with utilizing court processes. ODR is a branch of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. In this respect it is often seen as being the online equivalent of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). On 18 June 2013, the new legislation on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution has been published - the "Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Consumer ODR". The new legislation on ADR and ODR will allow consumers and traders to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost and simple way. The United Nations working group for online dispute resolution of cross-border electronic commerce transactions (UNCITRAL Working Group III) has been underway since 2010 to continue its work on procedural rules for ODR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2000

At its thirty-second session in 1999, the UNCITRAL had before it the requested note entitled "Possible future work in the area of international commercial arbitration." After concluding the discussion on its future work in the area of international commercial arbitration, it was agreed that the priority items for the working group should be conciliation, requirement of written form for the arbitration and enforceability of interim measures of protection. the Commission entrusted the work to the Working Group on Arbitration which held its thirty-second session at Vienna from 20 to 31 March 2000. The Working Group discussed agenda item 3 on the basis of the report of Secretary General entitled "Possible uniform rules on certain issues concerning settlement of commercial disputes : conciliation, interim measures of protection, written form for arbitration agreement." At its thirty-three session in 2000, the UNCITRAL had before it the report of Secretary General on agenda item 3 discussed by the Working Group. The Working Group discussed the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; (1) Admissibility of certain evidence in subsequent judicial or arbitral proceedings ; (2) Role of conciliatior in arbitration or court proceedings ; (3) Enforceability of settlement agreements reached in conciliation proceedings ; (4) Other possible items for harmonized treatment : a) Admissibility or desirability of conciliation by arbitrators b) Effect of an agreement to conciliate on judicial or arbitral proceedings c) Effect of conciliation on the running of limitation period d) Communication between the conciliator and parties ; disclosure of information e) Role of conciliator. It was generally considered that decisions as to the form of the text to be prepared should be made at a later stage when the substance of prepared solutions would become clearer. However, it was noted that model legislative provisions seemed to be appropriate form for a number of matters proposed to be discussed in the area conciliation. There was general support in the Working Group for the proposition to perpare a legislative regime governing the enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by arbitral tribunals. It was generally considered that legislative regime should apply to enforcement of interim measures issued in arbitration taking place in State where enforcement was sought as well as outside that State. It was generally observed that there was a need for provisions which conformed to current practice in international trade with regard to requirements of written form for arbitration agreement. The view was adopted by the Working Group that the objective of ensuring a uniform interpretation of the form requirement that responded to the needs of international trade could be achieved by : preparing a model legislative provision clarifying, for avoidance of doubt, the scope of article 7(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration : and adopting a declaration, resolution or statement addressing the interpretation of the New York Convention that would reflect a broad understanding of the form requirement. There was general agreement in the Working Group that, in order to promote the use of electronic commerce for international trade and leave the parties free to agree to the use of arbitration in the electronic commerce sphere, article II(2) of the New York Convention should be interpreted to cover the use of electronic means of communication as defined un article 2 of the Model Law on Electronic Commerce and that it required no amendment to do that. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider to the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues concerning conciliation and arbitration proceedings, possibly indicating whether future work should be towards a legislative text or non-legislative text.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.41
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2009

It is not difficult to understand from laws and practices in arbitration area that arbitrators appointed have as many rights as their duties to do their performing duties especially to participate in the proceeding and deliberations of the arbitral process. However, sometimes can be happened that an arbitrator who was appointed by a party, refuses to participate in the proceeding or resign during the arbitral process. Generally, in the case, it is provided that the arbitrator who fails to act can be replaced by a substitute arbitrator. When it is decided to change an arbitrator, the appointment of an substitute arbitrator is likely to cause time delay, high cost with inconvenience. And also it is to be considered for additional cost and delay from possible need for repeating the hearings that were held at former arbitral tribunal. Sometimes, a party want to delay intentionally the arbitration process by using right for challenging arbitrator or designing with an arbitrator who was appointed by the party. That is why the reason it has been discussed for allowing the truncated tribunal that the remaining arbitrators that is named as truncated tribunal are permitted to complete the proceeding and issue decisions or arbitral awards. Unfortunately there are uncertain views on the validity of arbitral proceeding or recognitions and enforcement of truncated tribunal decisions in international commercial arbitration. In this article it is focusing on discussing truncated tribunal's benefits or barriers and problems through comparing with famous arbitral rules of international arbitral institutes including rules of UNCITRAL, LCIA, KCAB and the revising draft arbitration rule of UNCITRAL.

• 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).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.85-106
• /
• 2017

This article deals with the relationship between arbitration and state court in each procedural stage. As most legal systems over the world respect arbitration agreement, the relationship between arbitration and state courts puts emphasis on party autonomy and provides the independent power of arbitration agreement tribunal (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Most institutional arbitration rules the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Modern national laws have similar provisions based on Art. 16 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this regards the author throws a question in Chapter II, whether the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, namely the ability of the tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction is worth while persisting, and whether the Kompetenz-Kompetenz-agreement should be regarded as valid, with the conclusion, that this doctrine should concede to the power of state court and that Kompetenz-Kompetenz-Klausel is invalid. In Chapter III the author discusses the issue of whether the breach of an arbitration agreement could lead to the compensation of damage. Although the author stands for the procedural character of arbitration agreement, he offers a proposal that the breach of an arbitration agreement bring about the compensation of damage. The issue of anti-suit injunction is discussed also in this Chapter. He is against the approval of anti-suit injunction based on an arbitration agreement resisting the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2007

This age is called the age of global trade, and the World Trade Organization is a forerunner in promoting the global free trade through multilateral negotiations as the global level. On the other hand, regional economic cooperation such as North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) is appearing, saying that promotion by WTO takes too much time. As is known to everybody, Europe is on the way of integrating member states through EU not to mention economic cooperation. Even in Asia such tendency is shown through ASEAN, Korea, China and Japan in Northeast Asia share 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. Under the situation, efforts have been made between three countries of Korea, China and Japan for the conclusion of investment agreements including FTA. If the conclusion of the FTA between the three countries would be realized, it would promote regional trade and investment, contributing to economic growth in the Northeast Asian region. The writer in this paper reviewed the settlement of private commercial dispute including investment dispute arising from the FTA and investment agreements. The investment dispute is quite different from an ordinary commercial dispute arising from commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc. Therefore it is a problem of vital importance that the parties interested in investment under the FTA as well as the relevant investment agreement should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes arising therefrom. The ICSID Convention provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. All contracting states of the ICSID Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce the ICSID arbitral awards. The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") is also applicable for the enforcement of arbitral awards to be rendered under the FTA. As to applicable rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules may be required for the settlement of investment disputes under the FTA. This Rules has adopted by the internationally recognized arbitral organizations although it was developed primarily for use in ad hoc arbitration. The promotion of arbitral cooperation may be realized through agreements between arbitral institutions. Especially under the NAPTA system, a central common system was established to resolve jointly private commercial disputes arising from such free trades by the initiative of arbitral organizations among the member countries. It is called Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA), which may be a good example for the settlement promotion of the private commercial disputes between Korea and other relevant countries.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2021

Recent Discussions on Third-Party Funding (TPF) in the forums of UNCITRAL, ICSID, and ICC are making different levels of progress towards finalizing the rules. However, they also have similarities in dealing with legal issues related to TPF, such as definitions, disclosure, allocation of costs, and security for costs. International treaty tribunals have dealt with TPF issues, too. When it comes to the standing of funded claimants, the tribunal in Ambiente v. Argentina did not accept the argument that claimants were controlled by the TPF provider. Concerning the scope of the disclosure, the tribunal in Tennant v. Canada ordered the disclosure of the TPF arrangement. As for the allocation of costs, the tribunal in Kardassopoulos v. Georgia noted that there is no reason why a TPF agreement should be treated differently than an insurance contract. Regarding the security for costs, the tribunal in South American Silver v. Bolivia considered the mere existence of a third-party funder as not an exclusive factor to determine costs in the earlier stage of the proceedings. Lastly, relating to TPF as a ground for annulment, the tribunal in Teinver v. Argentina declined the respondent's argument that the TPF agreement was the vehicle of fraud.