• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.33-54
• /
• 2008

The KCAB enacted their new international arbitration rules(the KCAB rules) in 2007 wheres The CIETAC revised their arbitration rules(the CIETAC new rules) in 2005. This article investigates some practical problems on both rules respectively and helps trading companies to proceed arbitration by these rules. This study finds some problems as follows. There are the following problems in KCAB rules. First, application fee is too expensive fee. So KCAB should cut down their application fee. Second, if there is no agreement on number of arbitrators, the arbitration is processed by sole arbitrator. But it is very difficult for sole arbitrator to process international arbitration due to characteristics of international arbitration such as complexity of case and a large sum of claim. Third, a period of selection of arbitrator is long. In view of developing of communication means, this period is needed more short. In the meantimes, there are the following problems in CIETAC rules. First, though the CIETAC new rules enlarges the right of parties autonomy such as selection of arbitration rules or revise of it, China arbitration Act stipulates a institute arbitration which restrict partie's autonomy. Second, if there is no agreement on arbitrators, the CIETAC appoints chair of tribural in three arbitrators ion or sole arbitrators. is processed by sole arbitrator. Third, a draft of arbitral award is checked by the CIETAC in advance. Especially, the two latter problems is possible for foreigners to have doubts of fairness of CIETAC arbitration. Becuase the CIETAC is not a complete independent private institution. Consequently, I suggest that Korean trading companies should examine problems of these two arbitration rules carefully, and select a most appropriate rules for settlement of their disputes with Chines companies.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.121-151
• /
• 2006

As globalisation extends its effect and particularly following China's accession to the World Trade Organization(WTO) in 2001, ever greater numbers of international transactions will feature a Chinese party. China has certainly made efforts in recent years to rectify law problem. While conducting business in China, foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals and companies. As foreign businesses invest in the extraordinary market opportunities in China, international arbitration has also become the preferred method for handling disputes with Chinese partners or with other foreign corporation over operations in China. The new Arbitration Rules of the International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) came into force on 1 May 2005. The new rules represent a major overhaul of CIETAC arbitration procedures and are sure to enhance CIETAC's position as a leading player in the resolution of China-foreign business disputes. The changes are significant for all companies doing business in China. So, this article investigated some amendments on the basis of 2000 Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.87-122
• /
• 1998

This study reports on the Arbitration system in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration commission (CIETAC) and the International Arbitration problems of Korea and China. The Chines laws including Arbitration laws are influenced by the civil Code system Particulary the German system. China is contracting state of the U N Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958 New York Convention), which became effective in the China April 22, 1987. International Commercial Arbitration is popular in China. CIETAC is the sole International Commercial Arbitration body in China. CIETAC has two sub-commissions, on is shen zhem S E Z and the other in shanghai. The CIETAC rules, are similar to the rules in effect in Countries using a civil Code system. Both an agreement to submit an existing dispute to Arbitration and an Arbitration clause in a contract relating to future disputes are recognizeal as valiad Arbitration agreements. CIETAC has the power to make a decision on disputes concering the validity of the Arbitration agreements, or jurisdiction over a specicific case.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.131-149
• /
• 2010

Since the Arbitration Law of China took effect in 1995, arbitration has grown with the economy. At the end of 2009, there were 202 arbitration institutions in China. Among them, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) has adopted online arbitration and has settled internet domain name disputes since 2001. CIETAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center(DNDRC) has accumulated abundant experiences of online arbitration in the field of domain name disputes. Based on those experiences, on 1 May 2009, CIETAC implemented the CIETAC Online Arbitration Rules(Rules') to regulate the resolution of e-business disputes as well as other business disputes. With this background, this article aims to study the status quo, practices and issues of online arbitration conducted by CIETAC. For the purpose of the article, a general picture of online arbitration is outlined first, followed by introducing the steps of the online arbitration procedure. According to the 'Rules', the entire arbitration process is conducted using online communication methods which are cost-effective and efficient. To facilitate the development of online arbitration, legal barriers need to be removed. This article considers main legal issues of online arbitration in China and proposes amendment to Chinese Arbitration Law, in particular, the recognition of the validity of electronic arbitration agreements and awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.127-145
• /
• 2014

The wording of Article 18 shows that a statement made by or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent to an offer is an acceptance. Meanwhile, Article 19 states that this reply with different terms is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counteroffer. For example, additional or different terms relating, among other things, to the price, payment, quality and quantity of the goods, place and time of delivery, extent of one party's liability to the other, or the settlement of disputes are considered to alter the terms of the offer materially. However, this reply with different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance unless the offer or, without undue delay, objects orally to the discrepancy or dispatches a notice to that effect. As a result, the acceptance depends on whether different terms are material or not. CIETEC holds that the deletion of contract violation liability clause is not equal to an alteration to the extent of one party's liability to the other as stipulated in Article 19(3) of the CISG. In addition, CIETAC recognizes that one party had orally accepted the modifications made to the sales confirmation, with even China declaring against an oral contract. Lastly, CIETAC holds that the sales confirmation has been established when both parties signed on the sales confirmation instead of the acceptance being effective. Korean companies should, thus, note these issues when they solve disputes at CIETAC.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.63-82
• /
• 2016

In order to cope with the changes of International Commercial Arbitration, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) regulated an Emergency Arbitrator for the first time, implementing the arbitration rules in China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone on May 1, 2014. Moreover, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) also regulated the Emergency Arbitrator in the revised arbitration rules on January 1, 2015. However, it caused considerable contradiction that SHIAC and CIETAC admitted an interim measure decision by the Emergency Arbitrator under the circumstance that the Chinese court can impose a preservative measure in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Arbiration Act. This study attempted to compare the main contents of an Emergency Arbitrator regulated in the arbitration rules of SHIAC and CIETAC with arbitration rules of representative arbitral institutions which operate an Emergency Arbitrator. In addition, this study verified the application features and problems through comparing the rule of SHIAC and CIETAC with the rule related to the preservative measure in Chinese law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2004

The problems on application for custody in CIETAC Arbitration Rule are examined in this paper. First, The issue of jurisdiction for application for custody is arisen from the expansion of material jurisdiction of CIETAC. Until 1998, CIETAC had a jurisdiction only for the cases involving foreigners, but now, it has a jurisdiction not only for the cases involving foreigners but also for domestic cases. In the cases of arbitrating disputes involving foreigners, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an intermediate people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. But in the cases of arbitrating domestic disputes, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an ground-level people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. Therefore, "People's court" in article 23 of CIETAC Arbitration Rule includes both intermediate people's court and ground-level people's court in its meaning. Second, in the cases that the party concerned submits arbitration to CIETAC, it is not permitted for the party to ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. But there still can be the urgent cases that interests of the party concerned are at stake, and legitimate rights and interests of the party concerned may be damaged beyond remedy, if no application for custody of property is filed immediately. In that cases, even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Therefore, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. When revising laws and rules, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. When arbitration tribunal decides it, the procedural provisions executing it must be provided. It is also required that China permit to apply preservation of evidence as well as custody of property before submitting an arbitration. It is also strongly recommended that China permit custody of property or preservation of evidence even in the cases that an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.167-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to find out some countermeasure to Korean companies entered Chinese market through analyzing an arbitration case resolved by CIETAC applied of Chinese Commission Agency Law and CISG. China create legal relationship between the principal and the third party under Chinese Consignment Contract Law. Korean companies so make sure whether this Contract is included when they conclude international commercial contract. If yes, they have to prove their recognition for the relationship between the principal and the commission agent when needed. If the parties agreed an additional period of time of delivery and the seller do not deliver the goods within this period, this breach might be regarded as fundamental nature and the buyer could declare the contract avoided. In addition, late delivery might also be regarded as fundamental breach when market price is fluctuated. It is understandable that attorney's fees is recoverable one, but it is not understandable that arbitrator's extra expenses such as travel and accommodation expenses is not recoverable with the reason that arbitrator comes outside of the country.