• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.53-70
• /
• 2019

This study analyzed some cases of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commision (CIETAC) related to the application of the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). As a contracting party of the CISG, China has accumulated a considerable amount of experience in applying CISG through commercial arbitrations. This study sought to understand how CISG is operated in commercial arbitration in China. By analyzing actual cases in China, Korean commercial arbitration can avoid mistakes and further improve. This study of Chinese cases will give some useful information for Korean companies. As defined by the CISG, the applicability can be divided into direct application and indirect application. When China joined the CISG, it made a reservation out of Article 1(1)(b). Korea and China are contracting parties to CISG and CISG is, therefore, directly applied. It is beneficial for Korea to understand how CIETAC is indirectly applied in China then. Some of the results of this study are as follows: First, CIETAC made a correct judgment most of the time on the direct application of CISG. However, there were mistakes in the judgment of the nationality of the parties in a few cases. The parties must clearly define applicable laws when entering into a contract. Secondly, the 2012 "CIETAC Arbitration Rules" was revised so that the "party autonomy" was introduced into Chinese commercial arbitration concerning indirect application. Therefore, the principle of autonomy of the parties was not fully recognized in the past judgments. Instead, the domestic law of China was applied in accordance with the reservation of Article 1(1)(b). Thirdly, China did not explain the application of CISG in Hong Kong, which led to ambiguity in concerned countries. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the status of CISG in Hong Kong. In addition, Korean companies should clearly define the applicable laws when dealing with Hong Kong companies.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권3호
• /
• pp.21-45
• /
• 2020

The major legal issues of this case were governing law questions regarding the liability of the shipowner/employer to its employee. It is true that in the absence of the parties' choice of law, the arbitral tribunal may apply the substantive laws or rules of law which it deems appropriate. However, it does not mean that the arbitral tribunal has arbitrary discretion in choosing the appropriate law as the governing law of the case; rather, the arbitrators should carefully examine the conflict of law rules of the forum and the requirement of the law of the country where the upcoming arbitral award will be enforced. They must bear in mind the role of the "connecting factors" in determination of the governing law. Therefore, the application of an alien law, which has minimal connecting factor with the case, may lead to a conclusion that is hardly understood by the parties. On the same token, the arbitrators must pay attention to applying the mandatory rules of a country, the laws of which not being the governing law of the issue. It is said that the application of the mandatory rules is a necessary evil to secure the enforcement of the award in the country, which has national interest in applying its own law to the issue. Further, arbitrators must pay attention to the consistent application of the law and respect the integrity of a legal system to reach a fair conclusion. The place of service of a seafarer for a vessel navigating international sea ought to be its home port country rather than the country of the ship registry, and the party autonomy in choice of the law in a seafarer employment should be respected.

• 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
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.31-47
• /
• 2008

An arbitrator's duty shall be independence and impartiality such as a judge who has procedurally absolute position. Independence is the freedom from others, impartiality is the status of having no-partial condition. Although these show relevance between independence and impartiality, in actuality, it is not easy to prove them. Therefore, arbitrator has to prove his or her position by opening the public of reality and by having an obligation of notification. Each country which applies Arbitration rules or Arbitration act stays the same as Korean Commercial Arbitration Board does. Hence, each country has the moral principles in order to establish a standard of judgement for essential factors and requests preferentially the impartiality and the publicity. In reality, court of justice in England excludes arbitrator who has the close relation to a person concerned. Justice in France cancelled an authorization of arbitrator because of having the economic interest to the person concerned. And also, In United States, Federal Court reverses an arbitration judgment without giving any partiality to a person concerned because of not opening a public about the relationship between arbitrator and a person concerned. Therefore, decision basis of the independence and the impartiality is standardized by the economic interest of a person concerned, professional relation, society connection, relationship between arbitrator and arbitration representative in the same case while in process of arbitration, arbitrator's nationality If arbitrator does not keep the independence and the impartiality by a position of judge, he or she has to make responsible. this duty is divided by two things: civil case and crime case. and if arbitrator does break this responsibility, he or she will get the cancellation of judge and compensation of damage. However, Korea is placed in the real circumstance without judge precedent and moral principles including the independence and impartiality. In order to getting the good reputation of international arbitration institution, this country will have to enact principles of the independence and impartiality for arbitrator.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.3-34
• /
• 2019

The resumption of economic cooperation between South and the North Korea will be a new growth engine for our economy. Many Korean companies are preparing to invest in North Korea in accordance with the progress of inter-Korean relations. However, there are many risks inherent in inter-Korean economic cooperation, as experienced in previous cases. Specifically, one should be prepared for unfair measures such as the expropriation of investment assets of South Korean enterprises by North Korea authorities. Therefore, it is essential to review the protection measures of investment in North Korea and to review the investment dispute settlement system. The South and the North have an agreement to establish the inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee to resolve the disputes that may arise if one party's investments are lost due to inappropriate or unfair measures due to the other party's authority. However, the Investment Agreement, which governs the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee, contains a number of declarative statements that are somewhat ineffective. Even today, nearly 20 years after the adoption of the Agreement, the specific detailed procedures have shown no real progress, such as in the enactment of arbitration rules. Therefore, at present, it is difficult to expect a system that can effectively address the damage of our corporations which have invested in North Korea. When the assets freeze after the suspension of Kumgang tourism and the closure of the Kaeseung Industrial Complex by North Korea, the activation of the inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee is the most important prerequisite for economic cooperation with North Korea. For this purpose, the resolution of disputes through the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee has to be made more concrete, with the effectiveness of the dispute settlement system enhanced by means of various efforts.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.21-39
• /
• 2010

The role of the arbitrator is so significant in the international arbitration that its success or failure may depend on the credibility of the arbitrator. It has long been understood that the ideal arbitrators are should be independent, unbiased, and have the requisite legal and/or technical expertise and experience for the case at hand. Arbitrators may be selected either by agreement of the parties, by appointment by arbitral institution or by a national court. This article outlines the main method of selecting the members of the tribunal plus some of the benefits and burdens of each method. One of the most common methods of appointing arbitrators is by agreement of the parties. This approach is very attractive because it allows parties to submit a their dispute to judges of their own choice, that they also agree on. Most arbitral institutions have a panel of arbitrators and their arbitral rules. So, if disputants agree on a specific arbitral institution, they can settle their disputes by arbitration easily and quickly. If disputants are unable to agree on arbitrator(s) or a specific arbitral institution, method of selecting arbitrator(s) by national court must be employed.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권1호
• /
• pp.91-107
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 국내 최초로 설립되는 해사중재센터에 대한 실무적 관점에서 활성화 방안을 제시하는데 그 목적을 두고 있다. 따라서 해사중재의 특징과 적합성에 대한 조사를 진행하였으며 해사중재센터가 가지게 될 의의에 대해 제시하였다. 그리고 해사중재센터가 앞으로 해사 분야에서 국제적 명성을 얻기 위해서는 다음의 사항들이 계획성 있게 마련되어 진행되어야 할 것이다. 우선 해사중재에 적합한 중재규칙을 제정해야 한다. 그리고 중재에 있어 가장 중요한 요소라 할 수 있는 중재인 양성 프로그램이 준비되어야 한다. 또한 실무분야에 종사하는 사람들과의 공감대 형성을 위해 다양한 프로그램 개발 및 간담회 등을 추진해야 한다. 이밖에 절차 진행이 제대로 이루어지기 위해 법원 등과의 유대관계가 필요할 것이다. 끝으로 중장기적 전략을 수립하기 위한 방안으로서 학계와 공동으로 연구를 진행해야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.123-156
• /
• 2004

Settlement of investment disputes is quite different from that of commercial disputes arising from ordinary commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc.. Therefore, it is very important to consider the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States(Washington Convention) of 1965. The creation of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID), which was established under the Washington Convention, was the belief that an institution specially designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between governments and foreign investors could help to promote increased flows of international investment. Pursuant to the Washington Convention, ICSID provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is entirely voluntary. However, once the parties have consented to arbitration under the Washington Convention, neither can unilaterally withdraw its consent. Moreover, all Contracting States of the Washington Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce ICSID arbitral awards. Provisions on ICSID arbitration are commonly found in investment contracts between governments of member countries and investors from other member countries. Advance consents by governments to submit investment disputes to ICSID arbitration can also be found in many bilateral investment treaties including the Korea-China Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments(1992), the Korea-Japan Agreement for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment(2003) and the Korea-Chile FTA, the latter was signed as of February 15, 2003 and is still pending in the National Assembly for its ratification. Arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is similarly one of the main mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes under the bilateral treaties on investment. Therefore, it is a problem of vital importance that Korean parties interested in investment to foreign countries should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes under the Washington Convention and bilateral investment treaties.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.55-81
• /
• 2021

Awarding interest in international arbitration remains one of the most challenging areas for tribunals and parties given the myriad of issues that arise. This article seeks to provide an overview of how international arbitral tribunals grant delay interest. It reviews the various issues that international arbitral tribunals face concerning pre-award and post-award interest, determining the appropriate interest rate, surrounding simple or compound interest, and the complex issue of choice of law. A comparative context is provided by surveying the laws of major jurisdictions from both the common law and civil law and the regulations of leading arbitral institutions. It concludes with a review of the law, jurisprudence, and practice in Korea related to delay interest and how Korean tribunals under the KCAB Domestic and International Rules have determined delay interest in recent years.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.59-90
• /
• 2015

Since 1855, the federal courts of the United States have been empowered to assist in the gathering of evidence for use before foreign tribunals. Today, the source of that authority is 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ which permits the courts to order a person "to give [ ] testimony... or to produce a document ... for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal${\cdots}$ ." It was generally assumed, until the United States Supreme Court's decision of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in 2004, that arbitration tribunals were not "foreign tribunals" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$. While the issue in Intel did not involve an arbitration tribunal, a statement by the Supreme Court in dicta has called into question the exact parameters of the words "foreign tribunal," resulting in a split of opinion among the federal courts of the United States. This article explores the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$, examines the United States Supreme Court decision in Intel, and discusses the split among the courts of the United States regarding the interpretation of "foreign tribunal." The article further surveys emerging issues: is an arbitration tribunal in a case involving foreign parties and seated in the United States a "foreign tribunal"; does agreeing to the use of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration circumscribe the use of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$; can a party be ordered to produce documents located outside the United States; and is there a role for judicial estoppel in determining whether an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ should be granted?