• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2016

This study primarily concerns the cases recently held as to the formation of contract under the CISG. In order to put forward the most plausible direction to interpret the rules on the formation of contract under the CISG, it particularly deals with the followings. First, it scrutinizes the rules on the formation of contract, focusing on the requirements of offer and acceptance, the time when such offer and acceptance become effective, the issues on the battle of forms. Second, it introduces two recent interesting cases regarding the formation of contract and provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intend to conclude a contract under the CISG as a governing law. The followings are practical points that the parties should consider when they enter into contract. First, as any signature or intial made in the offer could be regarded as an acceptance, the parties are required to clarify the meaning of such signature or initials before the conclusion of contract. Second, it is not necessarily required one's signature for an offer to become effective but his name. Third, standard terms cannot be incorporated into the contract simply by reference to web-page or other documents. In order for such terms to be incorporated, it may be necessary to enclose them in the offer or to bring the other party's attention to them. Forth, one should remember that an acceptance by act become effective not when such act is complete, but when it is performed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.3-34
• /
• 2013

In the international sales contract, long-term contracts often face hardship in fulfilling the original contract terms by relevant parties due to rapid change and uncertainty of political and economic circumstance. In this case, party who faces hardship of fulfillment terminates contract or demands adaptation to contract condition but if opponent doesn't accept this, it proceeds to commercial dispute needing legal interpretation. Generally it is wise to set forth governing law in contract between parties in the case of international contract, for legal stability. One of universal governing law which relevant parties select by agreement to solve economical hardship of fulfillment is PICC. PICC defines the hardship in detail for renegotiation on following hardship of fulfillment unexpected. In the case of failing renegotiation, Court(arbitral tribunal) conducts termination to contract or adaptation to contract condition through arbitration or mediation. In conclusion, when signing international long-term contract, it is desirous to handle dispute effectively by inserting provisions which can deal with economical hardship in contract or defining PICC as governing law in the case of hardship incurred. It is because it is realistic to handle dispute smoothly to the extent that both parties can be satisfied in the case of hardship incurred, though international contract should be fulfilled.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2015

The insurer's right to take legal proceedings in the name of the assured against a third party who has caused loss of or damage to the goods is of particular importance in marine cargo insurance under international trade transaction. The amounts recovered in subrogation actions, known in practice simply as recoveries, form a significant element in the balancing of the cargo insurer's underwriting account by improving ing the loss record. However, even if the carrier involved in the accident have a liability for damages, in some cases can not claim damages in accordance with the after clauses and carrier's exemption clauses indemnity carrier under the contract of carriage. In recent, the dispute cases to argue damages claim of the carrier in connection with business practices of surrender B/L, the claim is dismissed cases in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the after clauses. In the future, the surrender B/L is continually to use as a marine transport method, it may also be interested in insurance subrogation of damages claims to insurance accident by a surrender B/L.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2014

In contracts for the international sale of goods, a seller must deliver appropriate goods and hand over relevant documents according to a contract, which will transfer the ownership of the goods to a buyer. In this case, if there are defects in the contracted goods, the warranty liability will occur. However, in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), a term-the conformity of the goods to the contract-is used universally instead of the warranty. According to the CISG, a seller must deliver goods in conformance with the relevant contract in terms of quantity, quality, and specifications, and they must be contained in vessels or in packages according to the specifications in the contract. In addition, a certain set of requirements for conformity will be applied implicitly except when there is a separate agreement between parties. Further, the base period of conformity concerning the defects of goods is the point when the risk is transferred to the buyer. A seller shall be obliged to deliver goods that do not belong to a third party or subject to a claim then, and such obligations shall affect the right or claim of a third party to some extent based on intellectual property rights clauses. If the goods delivered by the seller lack conformity, or incur right infringement or claim of a third party, then it shall be regarded as a default item per the obligation of the seller. Thus, the buyer can exercise diverse means of relief as specified in Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 45-Article 52) of the CISG. However, such means of relief have been utilized in various ways for individual cases as shown in judicial precedents made until now. Contracting parties shall thus keep in mind that it is best for them to make every contract airtight and they should implement each contract thoroughly and faithfully to cope with any possible occurrence of a commercial dispute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.293-322
• /
• 1998

General Administrative Procedures of the Preshipment Inspection 1. Initial notification Preshipment Inspection is initiated by Agency when it receives notice either from the importing country, or the seller, that an export needs to be imspected 1.1 Notice from the importing country 1.2 Notice from the seller 2. Preliminary price verification After receipt of initial notification, Agency undertakes, Where possible, a preliminary price verification, based upon the Inspection Order and other contractual documents received. 3. Customs classification When required by the Government of the importing country. Agency forms an opinion of the Customs Classification Code based upon the Customs Tariff Book and Rules of Classification of the country of importation. The Customs Classification Code determines the tariff rate on the basis of which the importer will be required to pay import duties. 4. Import eligibility 5. Arrangements for physical inspection 5.1 Inspection request from seller 5.2 Place of inspection 5.3 Date of inspection 5.4 Physical inspection procedures 6. Physical inspection results When the physical inspection is completed, the inspector submits his report to the Agency office and the result of inspection will be communicated to the seller and, where applicable, the place of inspection. The result will state: satisfactory or conditional of unsatisfactory. The seller is welcome to present his views in writting to Agency in the event there is any query regarding the issuance of a conditional of unsatisfactory inspection result. 6.1 Satisfactory 6.2 Conditional 6.3 Unsatisfactory 7. Shipment of the goods The seller is advised to check with Agency prior to shipment if the physical inspection result has not been received or there are any doubts concerning whether a Clean Report of Findings will be issued. 8. Final price verification and classification Based on the results of physical inspection and appropriate final documents, Agency finalises the price verification and the Agency opinion of Customs classification code. When the preliminary price verification has not resulted in any unresolved questions and the inspection result and other documents received are consistent with the preliminary documentation, Agency will not normally require any additional information. The main exception would be if the terms of sale require reference to prices at the date of shipment. 9. The Report of Findings 9.1 Types of Reports of Findings - Clean Reports of Findings(CRF) The Agency will issue a Clean Reports of Findings(CRF), or equivalent document, normally within two working days after receipt of the necessary correct final documents and a satisfactory result in all aspects of the inspection. - Discrepancy Report.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.65-73
• /
• 2018

Since unfair trading practices between participants in construction project are common, the government has enforced several policies and systems to prevent or minimize the unfair trading practices in construction industry. However, not much attention has been paid to figure out which policies or acts are working or not. This paper analyzed the effectiveness of the policies and acts which are being implemented to prevent unfair trading practices and provided several suggestions to improve the performance of those acts. Survey was conducted to industry experts to collect data regarding their perceptions on those policies and acts. Then the effectiveness of the policies and acts were analyzed in terms of their importance and performance through IPA (Importance-Performance Analysis) based on the survey result. It was found through IPA that execution related acts such as investigation, exposure, and punishment for unfair trading practice have shown low effectiveness in entire construction process and dispute arbitration and mediation related center operated by authority showed low performance too. To improve the effectiveness of those acts, dispute arbitration system improvement, investigation & reporting system consolidation and enhancement practical binding force of punishment and penalty were suggested. Most of all, rules and culture for fair trading should become more established in construction industry by preventing conflict among participants through active communication.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.35-86
• /
• 2005

International distributorship contract(IDC), as well as international agency contract is a type of contract which is most frequently used in international trade. But one of the main difficulties faced by parties of IDC is the lack of uniform rules for this type of contract. This means that both parties should be careful about each clause of the contract when they draw up it. The ICC prepared model form which incorporates the prevailing practice in international trade, and which aims at protecting and balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. This author examined the several important clauses in this model contract. The purpose of this examination is to help the contracting parties for better understanding and applying them in their actual contracting practice, which based on this model contract. When the supplier and the distributor execute their contract or use ICC Model Contract, they should be careful about the following points: First, some terminologies(like, "territory", "product", "competing products" and "exclusivity") should be clearly defined in their contract. Second, regarding the supplier's functions including "supplying products" and the distributor's responsibility including "undertaking not to compete", and "attaining guaranteed minimum targets", both parties should make clear about each party's right and obligation as well as one party's remedies available when other party makes breach of its obligation. Third, both parties should examine the relationship between the "exclusivity" or "sole" and competition law which is regarded as a mandatory rule in the territory. Forth, when both parties lay down "termination clause" in the contract, they should make clear about the indemnity in case of termination. Fifth, as there is not uniform law for the distributorship contract, it is inevitable to choose any local law as an applicable law in case of litigation. So both parties should keep in mind to insert arbitration clause to avoid the application of the local law. Besides, both parties should consider their individual and specific circumstances and try to reflect them in their contract by Annex I to XI attached to the end of model contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.113-132
• /
• 2014

Judicial decisions make it clear that in all CIF, CFR and FOB contracts, incorporation of charter party into sale contracts is the only effective way for recovery of demurrage in the context of sale contracts. The case law would appear to clarify a number of important issues: The words of incorporation in the sale contract play a vital role in determining the extent of the influence of the charter party principles over the sale contract. Hence, unless it is expressly provided otherwise, the courts tend to apply the charter party principles to the incorporated charter party provisions to the extent that they make sense in the context of sale contract, and that they do not undermine the underlying foundations of international trade law. In this respect the courts also take into account the factual background of the case with a view to objectively ascertaining the intention of the parties. The law is, however, less clear on the effects of the incorporated charter party provisions in sale contracts. There is still no straightforward answer to the question of to what extent the charter party law is applied to the incorporated charter party provisions in the context of sale contracts. The case law on this matter merely provides piecemeal solutions, and it is not possible to extract a general rule which will help interpretation of those charter party provisions which have not yet been subject to litigation or arbitration. Therefore, it should be noted that the parties would prepare Incorporation Clause in their sale contracts in reliance of the rules to achieve the desired results.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2007

This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.