• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2017

This article tried to describe the laws concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in Indonesia. This issue is relevant in the light of frequent curiosity of foreign commentators, business communities, practicing lawyers, concerning the arbitration in Indonesia, in particular its enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. The main laws on arbitration analyzed were, firstly, the Indonesian law on arbitration, namely Law No 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Presidential Regulation No 34 of 1981 concerning the Ratification of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. The provisions of Law of 1999 analyzed were confined to its international provisions on arbitration, in particular the requirements for the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards and also the requirement that the awards do not violate Indonesian public policy. The problem with the Indonesian arbitration law (and the courts' practice) were that no provisions which provided guidance or meaning with regard to public policy. The absence or lack of guidance or definition on public policy had some times confused lawyers or the parties in dispute fearing that their arbitration awards would not be enforced due to the violation of public policy. Secondly was the different opinion of two Indonesian arbitration experts, Prof. Sudargo Gautama and Prof. Priyatna Abdurrasyid. Both scholars had rather different opinions with regard to the meaning of public policy in Indonesia. Thirdly was a recent case law, Astro Nusantara Bv et.al., vs PT Ayunda Primamitra Case (2010) decided by the Indonesian Supreme Court with regard to the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. This article concluded that the Indonesian court, in particular the Central of Jakarta Court, so far have given its support that the execution of foreign awards was duly enforced.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2022

This paper studies legal regulation of the public policy exception in the Russian Federation and domestic judicial practice on the issue. It reviews current legislation and analyzes a number of recent court cases where an arbitral award rendered by a foreign arbitration body was refused recognition and enforcement based on public policy violation. By doing so, it contributes to the knowledge on the concept of public policy in the Russian legal system and how public policy can affect the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on its territory. The review of court cases demonstrates different aspects of how the public policy exception can be applied by Russian arbitrazh courts. Such decisions can provide a clearer picture of the kinds of situation that can lead to invoking the public policy clause by the court. Also, it is of practical value as persons preparing to file a claim or to be a defendant in a Russian court can be required to present existing court decisions in support of their claim or defence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2002

When the ruling of Foreign Arbitral Awards contradicts the public policy of the enforcement state, it can be a ground for a refusal to enforce the ruling. New York Convention V section 2, UNCITRAL section 36, and Korean arbitration law section 36 confirm this principle. The final ruling of international arbitral awards should be respected according to the international convention or the principle of reciprocity, which cancel out the above principle: when the ruling contradicts the country's public policy, it can be refused to enforcement. Since the Helsinki General Convention, ILA have studied upon it and presented the final report and recommendation during the 2002 New Delhi General Convention. In it, firstly, the finality of awards rendered in the context of international commercial arbitration should be respected save in exceptional circumstances. Secondly, every state is recommended the “international public policy”, on which it can refuse to follow the ruling of international arbitral awards, and advised to respect it as far as possible.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2011

In the past, Chinese arbitral system and Chinese arbitral associations were avoided by international society due to the cases which Chinese court rejected the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on rural protection. Especially Chinese court adjudicated to reject the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by interpreting public policy broadly. The abuse of public policy by court threats the existence of commercial arbitration system. Under this awareness, the author figured out Chinese court shows what kind of attitude about public policy of Chinese court in the present through analyzing the cases about rejection of enforcement in Chinese arbitral awards in order to analyze whether Chinese court still maintain the negative attitude like past or there exist changes with public policy which is one of the rejection reasons of recognition and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards as the central figure. Chinese court behaved in an uncooperative attitude about arbitral awards like that it reached a verdict to reject the enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy about several foreign arbitral awards at the beginning stage of establishing arbitration law. However, the situation of abuse in public policy was improved a lot by Chinese prime court which enforces pre-inspection system about judgment of rejection of enforcement in arbitral awards. So, there is no case about rejecting the approval and enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy by Chinese court except Yongning Co. case. Moreover, Chinese court got the trust and support from other countries through reinforcement of applied standard. However, Chinese court had been expressed concern from international society because they highly applied public policy and rejected to enforce arbitral awards in the recent case of Yongning Co.. Therefore, this study examined whether it is appropriate to apply public policy of Chinese court in the case of Yongning Co., and then I concluded that. Although Yongning Co. case is the first case which Chinese prime court agrees with public policy by reason of rejection of approval and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that Chinese court has fundamental change in basic attitude and position about the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chinese court keeps the cautious uses of public policy in legal judgment of foreign arbitral awards and it looks like implementing the obligation in regulation of New York Convention sincerely.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.49-76
• /
• 2017

Lex arbitri, a law that regulates arbitration procedures at arbitral seat, can be viewed as an additional procedural law. In addition, the lex arbitri refers to mandatory provision imposed by each country on arbitrators in their own territory. The reason is that the lex arbitri often relates to matters of public policy of the place of arbitration. In Korea, the LMAA terms is frequently mentioned in the shipping industry in Korea, and the LMAA terms clause is often set up in the contract between Korean companies. However, the study of the UK Arbitration Act 1996, which regulates the LMAA arbitration, is not so much in Korea. On the other hand, Lex Arbitri, a corporation that regulates mediation procedures in arbitration, can be viewed as an additional procedure. There may also be procedures that must be followed compulsorily by the Arbitration Act of Arbitration. The reason is that Lex Arbitri seems to be related to the public policy of the arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration law of the country of arbitration seat may be the most important regulations in relation to the legality of the arbitration procedure. If the proceedings of the arbitration violate the Lex Arbitri, the arbitral award may be nullified. The purpose of this study is to analyze the arbitration theory, international arbitration and Lex Arbitri, focusing on the UK Arbitration Act 1996.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권3호
• /
• pp.31-68
• /
• 2023

In recent years, French courts have decided to adopt an uncompromising stance in the fight against corruption in international arbitration. While French enforcement/annulment courts were originally conducting a limited review of arbitral awards dealing with corruption allegations on international public policy grounds, they now carry a full re-examination of such awards accepting that a corruption plea be raised for the first time before them and admitting new evidence. What is at stake, in terms of international public policy, is to define the happy medium between, on the one hand, the necessity to preserve the enforceability of international arbitral awards, and, the necessity to fight corruption. This paper presents the evolution of French case law in the past years and makes a critical assessment of the French approach by comparison with other jurisdictions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.523-541
• /
• 2016

According to Chinese Arbitration Law, combination of mediation with arbitration means that in the process of arbitration, arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case they are handling, provided both parties agree to do so. If mediation succeeds and the parties reach a settlement agreement, the arbitrators may render a consent award or a written mediation statement in accordance with the contents of the settlement agreement. If mediation fails, the arbitration proceedings will be resumed until the case is concluded by making of an arbitral award. There is no formal name of this system in China, it is called "combination of mediation with arbitration", "mediation in arbitration process" or "arbitration-mediation", the author of this thesis select "arbitration-mediation" and make it simply as "Arb-Med". This thesis concentrates on three issues that arbitrators and the parties have to clarify and pay attention to once they choose to use Arb-Med. The first part is about the 'waivable problems', include waive the right to challenge a arbitrator who act as a mediator at the same time with parties' approval, as well as the question about the waiver of the arbitrator's duty to disclose confidential information obtained during mediation. The second part is 'public policy in Arb-Med', introduces the concept of public policy, the bias may arise the complaint about public policy, and the due procedure problem. And the last part is about the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, especially about the award including some contents which has relation to third party's interests.