• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.183-232
• /
• 1999

The legislative body of The People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress, enacted the first arbitration act in China's history on August 31st, 1994, which took effect on September 1, 1995. The problems revealed through a comparison of China's Arbitration Act with the UNCITRAL model arbitration law were studied as well as the enacting process, background, status and system, important contents, problems of Chaina's Arbitration Act, and the differences between the old arbitration regulations and the new arbitration act. These are all discussed in this paper. The Arbitration Act is the basic act ruling over china's arbitration system: it unified the previously confusing laws and regulations relevant to the arbitration system, and the act brings out fundamental changes in China's domestic arbitration to the level of international arbitration standards. It is possible to view this act as a cornerstone in China's arbitration system. But, as discussed in this paper, there are still a lot of problems with the new act and only a few of the merits which the UNCITRAL model arbitration law has. First, under China's Arbitration Act, parties enjoy autonomy to some degree, but the range of party autonomy, compared to that of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, is too narrow. Second, because China's Arbitration Act didn't explicitly provide issues which can give rise to debate, a degree of confusion in its interpretation still remains. Third, China's Arbitration Act's treatment of some important principles was careless. Fourth, in some sections, China's Arbitration Act is less reasonable than the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. These problems must be resolved in order to develop China's arbitration system. The best way of resolving these problems for China is to adopt the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. But it is difficult to expect that China will accept this approach, because of the present arbitration circumstances in China. Although it is difficult to accept all the contents of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, China's legislators and practitioners must consider the problems mentioned in this paper.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2011

The agreement to arbitrate is a central feature of commercial arbitration and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement is recognised as a reason why any arbitral award may not be recognized as binding by the courts or may be set aside. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement. Most arbitration laws only require an arbitration agreement to be "in writing". But the arbitration law of the China require an arbitration agreement shall contain the following: 1. The expression of application for arbitration. 2. Matters for arbitration. 3. The arbitration commission chosen. And China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement are somewhat different from the other nations.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2016

In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.91-130
• /
• 2010

This thesis, which mainly focuses on judicial supervision of commercial arbitration in China, will deal with the developing process of arbitration system and analyze the actual condition of judicial supervision in commercial arbitration. And it also focuses on the underlying problems attributed to the excessive judicial intervention and an effort that the related academic world, arbitration industry and legal circles in China start to make in order to improve the system, resolving them. About the time China became a member of the WTO and about the 10th anniversary of the enforcement of Arbitration Law, powerful demands to solve the problems started to exist intensively. Academic field in China integrated these demands into the form of "proposed amendment of arbitration law", which enhanced the independence of arbitration and the autonomy of the involved parties drastically, as it accepted major contents of UNCITRAL Model Law while preserving of original tool of Chinese arbitration system. Separately from the movement in academic field, Supreme People's Court starts to exert itself for the, improvement of arbitration system, by announcing a series of proposed judicial interpretation so that it could collect the public opinion continuously and reflect the gathered opinion in judicial interpretation efficiently. Notwithstanding, there still remains to be ameliorated that the Arbitration Law of the PRC won't be able to overcome original limit when valuating judicial intervention on arbitration in some ways.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2015

There are three categories of arbitration - domestic arbitration, foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitration. Although the meaning of foreign arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration is different, they are used to mean the same in practice. In fact, there is significant controversy about the meaning of non-domestic arbitration because it is too difficult to distinguish between non-domestic arbitration and domestic arbitration. In the Chinese arbitration system, there are two main laws,Chinese Arbitration Law and Chinese Civil Procedure Law. Chinese Arbitration Law regulates the internal matters, while Chinese Civil Procedure Law regulates the external legal regulations. After the 2012 revised Chinese Civil Procedure Law, a number of laws and regulations have been revised, and almost every Arbitrations Rules have been revised, and will be in effect in 2015. Depending on the nationality of arbitration, the applicable laws will be different. The nationality of arbitration is so important that this paper will pay more attention to it. Although the case in China has no precedent effect, it is so important to the parties that this paper will address it. This paper will analyze the process and the cases of the recognition and enforcement of the award system in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.29-49
• /
• 2021

The Chinese Arbitration Law came into force in 1995 and has been implemented for 26 years. As a party to the New York Convention, there are many contradictions and conflicts between the Chinese Arbitration Law and the New York Convention on the issue of ad hoc arbitration, and this institutional disconnection can bring about problems such as misalignment of arbitration powers. On July 30, 2021, China's Ministry of Justice published a draft of the revised Arbitration Law for public consultation, and the draft has generated a lively debate among the public. This article explores the reasonable and inadequate points of the draft of Arbitration Law in light of the recent trends in the use of commercial arbitration in China, the COVID-19, the Free Trade Zone, and the relationship between the Civil Code and the Arbitration Law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.117-138
• /
• 2008

This study lies on building the International Standardization of China Arbitration System for improving a relationship of mutual trust and the safety trade between China and other worldwide countries, especially, South Korea as their one of the biggest trading partners through the comparative analysis of China and UNCITRAL Arbitration Law. In this analysis, the differences from China and UNCITRAL in arbitration law are like belows ; lack of arbitrator's international mind, the limitation of private property right, prohibition of Ad. hoc arbitration, arbitrator's biased nationalism, localism, and their short specialties. a deficiency of the objectiveness for arbitrator's election, a judgement rejection of claimants by using nonattendance and walkout, impossibility of prior and temporary property custody for execution of arbitration award. etc. For the improvement of the International Standardization of China Arbitration, this paper propose as follows: 1) Extension of private property right, reorganization of tax system, realization of open competition, exclusion of 'Sinocentrism', globalization of arbitration system 2) The abolition of old fashioned bureaucracy with approval for ad.hoc arbitration 3) An education for arbitrator's internationalization, specialty, and to promote legal knowledge 4) A settlement of the third country arbitrators' selection for reflecting interested party's decision by the court in a selection system of arbitration committee. 5) Institutionalization of arbitration judgment that prevent for claimant's avoidance by using a withdrawal and an intentional absent 6) A permission of the right of claimant's court custody directly before the begging of arbitration request for the prevention for destruction of evidence and property concealment 7) Grant of the arbitration tribunal's interim measures of protection for private property preservation to the third party, proof security, prevention from the loss that selling the corruptible goods 8) Improvement of arbitration's efficiency from the exclusion of the obstacles that are forgery, concealed evidence, and arbitrator's bribe taking Lastly, I hope that this study will serve to promote friendly economic relationship between China and South Korea and strive for international equilibrium through the achievement of China Arbitration's International Standardization. I will finish this paper with a firm belief that this will lead to more advanced studies.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.257-298
• /
• 1993