• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.273-314
• /
• 2004

There is a belief in the construction industry that the traditional court system may not be an ideal forum to effectively and efficiently resolve construction disputes due to the protracted proceedings and the three tier appeal system resulting in a long delay in the final and conclusive settlement of the dispute, relatively high costs involved, the lack of requisite knowledge and experience in the relevant industry, etc. Hence, they assert that certain alternative dispute resolution ('ADR') methods, such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration or a new system for dispute settlement in the form of any combination thereof should be developed and employed for construction disputes so as to resolve them more promptly and efficiently to the satisfaction of all the disputants concerned. This paper discusses certain merits of such assertions and the need for additional considerations for effective resolution of the construction disputes in light of the complexity of the case, importance of expert witnesses, parties' relationship and non-level playing field of the construction industry and so on. At the same time, however, given the inherent nature of disputes rendering the parties involved in an adversarial position, it would rather be difficult, if not practically impossible, to satisfy all the parties concerned in the dispute. Accordingly, in this study, it is also purported to address the demerits of such assertions by studying the situation from a more balanced perspective, in particular, in relation to the operation of such ADRs. In fact, most of such ADRs as stipulated by special acts, such as the Construction Industry Basic Act of Korea, in the form of mediation or conciliation, have failed to get support from the industry, and as a result, such ADRs are seldom used in practice. Tn contrast, the court system has been greatly improved by implementing a new concentrated review system and establishing several tribunals designed to specialize in the review and resolution of specific types of disputes, including the construction disputes. These improvements of the court system have been warmly received by the industry. Arbitration is another forum for settlement of construction disputes, which has grown and is expected to grow as the most effective ADR with the support from the construction industry. In this regard, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board ('KCAB') has established a set of internal rules end procedures in operation to efficiently handle construction disputes. Considering the foregoing, this paper addresses the most important elements of the arbitration, i.e., arbitration agreement and arbitral award, primarily focusing on the domestic arbitrations before the KCAB. However, since this parer is prepared for presentation at the construction disputes seminar for the public audience, it is not intended for academic purposes, nor does it delve into any specific acadcmic issues. Likewise, although this paper addresses certain controversial issues by way of introduction, it mainly purports to facilitate the understanding of the general public, including the prospective arbitrators on the KCAB roster without the relevant legal education and background, concerning the importance of the integrity of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award. In sum, what is purported in this study is simply to note that there are still many outstanding issues with mediation, conciliation and arbitration, as a matter of system, institutional operation or otherwise, for further study and consideration so as to enhance them as effective means for settlement of construction disputes, in replacement of or in conjunction with the court proceeding. For this purpose, it is essential for all the relevant parties, including lawyers, engineers, owners, contractors and social activists aiming to protect consumers' and subcontractors' interests, to conduct joint efforts to study the complicated nature of construction works and to develop effective means for examination and handling of the disputes of a technical nature, including the accumulation of the relevant industrial data. Based on the foregoing, the parties may be in a better position to select the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism, a court proceeding or in its stead, an effective ADR, considering the relevant factors of the subject construction works or the contract structure, such as the bargaining position of the parties, their financial status, confidentiality requirements, technical or commercial complexity of the case at hand, urgency for settlements, etc.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2006

Enforcement of an arbitration award is an extremely important issue in arbitration. Arbitration, as a dispute settlement process, is rendered meaningless if it is not possible to enforce an award rendered by an arbitration tribunal. On the other hand, the present international arbitration system guided by the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law is established on the dual supervision from the national courts. The nationality of the international arbitral award closely relates to the supervision of the national court, and the national court is entitled to decide the nationality of the international award in accordance with the conditions set in its own domestic law. The national court may set aside arbitral award made in its territory while the foreign court may refuge enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to its own law and international convention to which it is a party. The conditions set in the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China are in agreement with those set in the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Chinese national court is entitled to set aside international awards made in China in accordance with the Chinese Law. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the Chinesr practice on the revocation of international commercial arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.23-46
• /
• 2021

Sports disputes have specific characteristics compared to disputes that arise in the field of commerce. One particularity is the judicial system in which the CAS plays a key role as the International Supreme Court for sports-related matters. The CAS Code applies whenever the parties agree to submit a sports-related dispute to the CAS(Art. R27). Once the parties to the arbitration agreement have decided that the CAS Code should govern their proceedings. The parties' autonomy is, however, limited to the provisions of the CAS Code that provide for such a corresponding autonomy. The application of the mandatory rules contained in the CAS Code cannot be excluded. In CAS appeals arbitration proceedings, the Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable sports regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties(Art. R58). In international sports disputes, the uniform application and interpretation of the relevant regulations are essential. Therefore, Art. R58 should be applied as a mandatory rule without any changes. Regulations of the sports organizations are to be qualified as valid rules of law. CAS panels may also apply the so-called lex sportiva to the merits before considering statutory provisions of national jurisdictions. In this way, the specificities in (international) sports disputes can be taken into account without the need to further examine the application of national legal standards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2017

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party's autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court's judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.39-52
• /
• 2019

There are various factors to consider when parties to an international agreement draft a dispute resolution clause in their written contract. These factors can be classified into two categories. The first category is about the parties and the nature of the contract, such as the parties' places of business and whether the contract contains a simple transaction or has a complicated nature. The second category is about the applicable rules of the parties' places of business or performance such as the private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of court judgment and arbitration award rules. When parties to an international contract agree to a litigation, they normally choose a forum court and a governing law. In selecting a forum court and a governing law, the parties must consider private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of judgement rules of candidate forums. In case the parties agree to an arbitration, they have to choose between institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. For ad hoc arbitration, parties still need to further agree on which arbitration rules to use, and in which place the arbitration shall take place. Mediation involves a similar kind of decision as with arbitration. Traditionally, national courts of the parties' places of business have been used as litigation forums in dispute resolution clauses but, recently, arbitration is being increasingly employed as an alternative dispute resolution method in international contracts. Moreover, there have been international efforts to utilize mediation as a dispute resolution method in international commercial issues. Rather than simply taking a dispute resolution clause provided in a sample written contract, parties to an international contract must carefully consider various relevant factors in order to insert a dispute resolution clause which will work well for a particular contract.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.153-172
• /
• 2018

In solving international commercial disputes, arbitration has a unique advantage. Therefore, when most parties sign a charter party, they contain arbitration clauses. Whether the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading and bind to the third party-bill holder becomes an important issue. Based on the problem above, this paper compares the arbitration system between Korea and China, and discusses the composition of the Chinese Maritime Court and the Chinese court's adjudication of arbitration for foreign countries, which are recognized and enforced in China. What is most important in this study is observing the Chinese case from the beginning of 2000 to the present in order to rule whether the Chinese court can effectively incorporate the arbitration clause in the charter party into the bill of lading, as well as whether it constitutes an effective binding force for third parties and changes in standard of recognition. Finally, through comparative analysis, the study concludes that in China, the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading, and that the conditions for the third parties can be effectively restrained. There must be several points to be noted when recording the bill of lading. This would then help reduce the legal risks and promote the sustainable development of international transactions.

• 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
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2014

The Arbitration Act of Korea entered into force on December 31, 1999. It was modeled after the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law to meet the goal of the internationalization of the arbitration system of South Korea mainly in terms of the System (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Act. In general, a hearing of arbitration is made up of an arbitrator, claimant, and respondent. This is accomplished in a single core. The advantages of arbitration are low cost and confidentiality. In addition, there is the participation of experts and rapidity with a single core agent. However, under the current Arbitration Act, there is no provision expressly relating to the qualifications of arbitrators. This should be accomplished by the arbitration act enforcement ordinance. Following specific details of the 'party' in conjunction with all the provisions of the Arbitration Act, Article 1 should be revised in a timely manner so that "conflict of private law" covers cases in which a dispute between the parties is desirable. In addition, in Article 3 the phrasing of "also dispute 'judicial'" should be revised to over disputes between parties. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 40 are described in the Supplement and so it is preferable to address Supplementary Delete. In addition, this study will analyze ADR in Japan and present a plan to establish a law to resolve disputes outside of court in that country. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assist in the study of legislating fundamental law for alternative dispute resolution. In spite of this, there are many in business and academia who would like to modify the arbitration system in South Korea to improve its function. There is much interest in accomplishing this,so proposals for legislation should continue to be made.In order to accomplish this, the arbitration systems of developed countries such as the United States can be used as a model. It can be seen that despite the idea that the parties involved engage in arbitration autonomously, many elements of the process from the selection of the arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal are specified in legislation and thus it is necessary to develop legislation that will allow arbitration to perform its intended function. Any given arbitral tribunal can be specialized, typically in a case an arbitrator who is an expert in the field is selected. This helps to avoid complaints concerning the results of the arbitration. In the case of international arbitration, however, this provision is often not employed and instead it is necessary to provide a Schedule and Supplement concerning international arbitration. Finally, the promotion of the enactment of the Arbitration Law Enforcement Ordinance must be a top priority in order to ensure proper implementation of the arbitration law.