• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.43-75
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was created to focus on the procedural complexity in the resolution of sports-related disputes, confidentiality, the matter of expenses, and the necessity of prompt settlement in the field of international sports. The CAS had originally launched as one of bodies of International Olympic Committee (IOC), but later it became properly operational as an independent organization to facilitate sports-related disputes when the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which came into force in accordance with the Paris Agreement in 1984 and has acted in place of IOC, took responsibility for the administration and financing of the CAS. The CAS is composed of four divisions, the Ordinary Arbitration Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division, the Ad hoc Division created later in 1996 and the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) established as from 2016 only to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions on an alleged anti-doping rule violation, and two (Sydney and New York) permanent decentralized offices. The head office of the CAS is Lausanne, Switzerland. Since CAS ADD was established, CAS Ad hoc Division has had jurisdiction over the appeal case against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an international Federation or an Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games. Although there are so many virtues of CAS as a resolution authority for sports-related disputes in terms of its organization, arbitration rules and procedures, it is also true that the CAS has not been showing the consistency. The CAS should overcome these issues through much more advanced system and its instant and fair decisions.

• 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.11 no.1
• /
• pp.181-215
• /
• 2001

The thirty-fourth session of UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration was held in New York. Among the topics discussed at the session, many delegations agreed to reform the article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in light of the development of electronic commerce. As for the article 2(2) of the New York Convention, it was agreed to reflect the changes of the article 7 not in the form of a treaty amendment but in the form of an interpretative statement. The topic as to provisional measures has been found so difficult to reach an agreement that most of its texts submitted by the secretariat were left untouched for the lack of time. However, most provisions of the legislative texts on conciliation were dealt with by delegations. The next session is to be held in Vienna. While the Korean Arbitration Act of 1966 was fully amended in 1999, it seems interesting to look at the development in which the arbitration community of the world has already begun discussing the new dimension of the law and practice of international commercial arbitration. It may be considered early to start a new project of reforming the Korean Arbitration Act at this time when only three years passed after it was fully amended. It is, however, worthwhile to remember that some progressive efforts were aborted in amending the Arbitration Act of 1966. One of them is about the same issue on the insertion of some provisions on the enforcement of interim measures of protection to which the priority is given by the Working Group. It seems fair to say that it would not be dangerous to follow the developments and to adapt ourselves to such trends shown in the session. In Korea, the words “arbitration” and “conciliation” are misleadingly interchanged although these two words should be differentiated from each other in the sense of third-party binding decision. It is self-evident from the Korean Arbitration Act and judicial decisions that arbitral awards bind the disputing parties and are to be treated as final judgements by the competent courts. It is, however, not uncommon to find that the word “arbitration” is misinterpreted as having the same meaning of the word “conciliation”. One of the reasons for the confusion is that many legislations in Korea provide for conciliation as having the meaning of arbitration and vice versa. It may be probable that the proposed legislative texts on conciliation could be a kind of useful method to prevent such confusion from being uncontrollable. It is, therefore, necessary that the legislative texts should be introduced into Korea as a legislation on conciliation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.89-114
• /
• 2011

Environmental disputes not only possess the special characteristics of collectivity and plural value relativity but it also possesses the unique features of difficulty to prove cause and effect as well as the structural maldistribution of evidence and information. Therefore, the positive resolution of an environmental dispute can be brought about more easily with the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which can take the form of talks, compromises, as well as arbitration or mediation rather than through a trial process. Such being the case, this paper first looks into the problems and effectiveness of the arbitration system of environmental lawsuits and then takes an even closer look at Korea's environmental dispute arbitration system and finally offer some reform methods. In Korea, the environmental dispute arbitration system was implemented in 1991 and has been executed since then. Although this system does have positive features such as the high rate of coming to an agreement between the involved parties but unfortunately, most of the cases rely on decisions based on right and wrong which cannot but be far away from the intentions of the ADR system. It is heavily centered around claims regarding psychological compensation regarding noise and vibrations and the ratio of the actual amount of compensation is comparatively lower than the requested amount. In addition, with the limits in organization and manpower, it leads to a lack of professionalism as well as the problem of low usage with the low awareness rate. As reform measures against the aforementioned problems, this paper suggests the following. First, in order to activate the arbitration process more fully, it proposes aggressive usage of compulsory arbitration as well as submission to arbitration, while at the same time raising ADR professionals to fill in the missing gaps. Secondly, in order to overcome the problem of concentration of related cases, making representative lawsuits of environmental organizations would be a good idea. It also states that in order to make the compensation amount more realistic, it should go out of the across-the-board decision making process and reach a decision about the compensation amount that takes the individual situation's dispute into consideration. In order to boost the professionalism of the environmental dispute arbitration, it is necessary to reform the organization and manpower such as expanding the number of members of full standing, and increasing the professionalism of the examiners. Also, to increase the usage rate of the ADR system, the paper suggests stationing a civilian consultant regarding environment, or activating the compulsory arbitration which is the premise for public participation on the part of the residents.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.189-219
• /
• 2007

Mediation is type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of the judge or a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation differs from arbitration in being a voluntary resolution rather than a judicial procedure. Thus, the parties to the dispute are not bound to accept the mediator's recommendation. Resort to mediation has become increasingly frequent for civil disputes. Mediation has been successful in many cases of civil conflict. Mediation has become increasingly important for monetary disputes as well, particularly in damage cases. While most people consider mediation a far superior experience to court, everything I tell you a mediator should not do is something that at least one mediator I have dealt with has done to a client. In theory, a mediator should never share anything you tell him or her without your permission. In theory a mediator should not "spring" evaluations on anyone in a mediation without your permission (e.g. a mediator should never say "your case is worth \OOOO and I just told the other side that). In theory a mediator should not browbeat or threaten you. At the end, usually about 55% of the time with a good mediator in Kwangju Appellate Court in 2003, the parties reach an agreement that is in their best interests. If they decide to sign off on a signed agreement, the signed agreement is binding. I obviously feel mediation is a very good thing and the numbers and surveys bear me out. This article is written about how mediation is proceeded, what is the realities, what is the problem and what is the activating way. For this study, I research with legal sociological approach using Korean Judicial Year Boot judicial document and my experience as meditator in Kwangju District Court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.185-207
• /
• 2008

한국 기업과 프랑스 기업 간에 한국기업이 프랑스기업으로부터 의약품의 임상자료 등에 관한 비밀정보 (Confidential information)를 받아서 한국식품의약품안전청에 의약품 제조허 가를 받기 위해 활용하는 과정에서 체결한 비밀유지 계약 (Secrecy Agreement)의 위반행위 여부의 분쟁이 발생하였다. 이 분쟁은 비밀유지계약 내의 중재조항에 의거하여 프랑스기업에 의해 프랑스 파리 소재 국제중재 판정부 (ICC Court Arbitral Tribunal) 에 회부되었고 한국기업이 응소하여 중재판정부에서 분쟁 사실들에 관한 양 당사자 회사들의 전문가들의 증언, 준비 서면들을 검토하여 비밀유지계약 각각의 조문의 해석을 통해 중재판정이 내려졌다. 이 중재판정은 ‘외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 뉴욕협약’에 의거하여 중재판정 집행지국인 우리나라의 법원에서 집행판결을 거치게 되었다. 이때 한국법원에서는 뉴욕협약상의 집행거부 사유들에 관한 판단을 한 후 프랑스기업의 일부 승소의 집행판결을 내렸다. 본 사례연구의 시사점을 보면, 중재조항에 의거한 ICC 중재판정부의 심사절차는 각 나라 고유의 판례나 규정보다는, 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 근거하여 중재판정이 내려졌다는 것이다. 우리나라 법원 역시 중재인의 건전한 상식에 근거를 둔 중재판정의 세부적 내용에 대하여 중재권한, 국제적 공공질서 상의 심각한 문제점이 존재하지 않은 점을 고려하여 일부분을 제외하고는 외국중재판정을 그대로 집행함을 인용하는 판결을 내렸다는 점이다. 따라서, 한국기업들이 국제분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 중재판정이 내려진 후 집행단계에서 중재판정 내용을 바꾸려는 노력을 하기보다는, 중재 절차 진행단계에서 한국 기업에게 객관적으로 입증할 수 있는 유리한 증거들을 중점적으로 적극 활용하여 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 바탕을 둔 중재판정을 유리한 방향으로 내리도록 유도하는 것이 더욱 바람직한 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.131-160
• /
• 2017

When any investment dispute arises, the investor has to exhaust the local remedies available in the host state, and according to the agreement between the parties, the investor is filed to the ICSID arbitral tribunal to seek arbitral awards. At this time, if the arbitral tribunal decides that the investment agreement has been violated, it normally demands the host state to provide financial compensations to the investor for economic loss. According to the rules of the investment agreement, the host state is supposed to fulfill the arbitral awards voluntarily. If it is unwilling to provide financial compensations according to the arbitral awards, however, the investor may ask the domestic court of the host state for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In addition, if the host state is unwilling to fulfill arbitral awards on account of state immunity, the investor may ask his own country (state of nationality) for diplomatic protection and urge it to demand the fulfillment of arbitral awards. Effectiveness for pecuniary damages, a means to solve problems arising in the enforcement of investment arbitral awards, is found to be rather ineffective. For such cases, this study suggests an alternative to demand either a restitution of property or a corrections of violated measures subject to arbitral awards.