• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.183-213
• /
• 2011

China and North America have been South Korea's biggest trading partner long time. As the volume of trade has been increasing, the disputes between Korean companies and Chinese Companies and between Korean companies and North American Companies have been increasing. If these disputes are settled by Arbitration, the parties appoint arbitrators who are empowered to proceed the arbitration procedure and have a power to render an arbitral award. Accordingly, it is very important for the parties to select who is an arbitrators in Arbitration. But if the parties doubt their arbitrator(s)'s fairness and independency, they can discharge them in accordance to law and arbitration institute's rules. In comparison with arbitrator system for way of selection and discharge among Korea, China and North America, some differences are found. First, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or the presiding arbitrator by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them or him in Korea and North America whereas the Chairman of CIETAC choose him in China. Second, the authority to decide whether arbitrator is discharged owing to his fairness and independency, depends on arbitration institute and court in Korea and North American whereas it depends on the Chairman of CIETAC only.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2016

Lately each country tends to provide neutrality and ease of enforcement in order to settle disputes related to international trade through commercial arbitration. In order to expand the use of arbitration systems, most countries accept arbitration agreements as an effective tool agreed between parties that express their intent to settle disputes by the arbitration. It is applied equally to selective arbitration agreements and parties can select either arbitration or lawsuit to settle disputes based on the contract intent for selective arbitration agreements. However, China does not admit the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreements. Chinese courts regard selective arbitration agreements as not valid because the contract of a selective arbitration agreement between parties is not a definite expression to only use the arbitration and there is no exclusion of court jurisdiction. Therefore, the study attempts to consider effective conditions for selective arbitration agreements in the Chinese arbitration act and other relevant regulations, and also verifies the judgment by Chinese courts on relevant disputes. As a result, the study explores some problems and implications of Chinese selective arbitration agreements and suggests some precautions in case Korean companies pursue selective arbitration agreements with Chinese enterprises and investors.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.153-172
• /
• 2018

In solving international commercial disputes, arbitration has a unique advantage. Therefore, when most parties sign a charter party, they contain arbitration clauses. Whether the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading and bind to the third party-bill holder becomes an important issue. Based on the problem above, this paper compares the arbitration system between Korea and China, and discusses the composition of the Chinese Maritime Court and the Chinese court's adjudication of arbitration for foreign countries, which are recognized and enforced in China. What is most important in this study is observing the Chinese case from the beginning of 2000 to the present in order to rule whether the Chinese court can effectively incorporate the arbitration clause in the charter party into the bill of lading, as well as whether it constitutes an effective binding force for third parties and changes in standard of recognition. Finally, through comparative analysis, the study concludes that in China, the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading, and that the conditions for the third parties can be effectively restrained. There must be several points to be noted when recording the bill of lading. This would then help reduce the legal risks and promote the sustainable development of international transactions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.37-67
• /
• 2023

Arbitration is a just and efficient method for resolving economic disputes. It adapts to the needs of economic development and is an important institution in today's society. Around the world, a tradition of resolving disputes through arbitration spontaneously developed in ancient times and gradually evolved into a legal system with the development of jurisprudence starting from the Middle Ages. In China, formal legislation on arbitration began in the modern era during the Republic of China period. However, the origins of arbitration as a method for resolving disputes can be traced back to ancient times, during the Qin and Han dynasties. The most significant modern arbitration legislation in China is the "Arbitration Law" enacted in 1995, which drew on the experiences of foreign arbitration laws. Despite this, there are still many areas in arbitration legislation that require improvement based on practical experiences. Currently, revisions to the Arbitration Law are underway, and historical experiences may offer valuable insights, assisting in better integrating the Arbitration Law with Chinese society. This article primarily focuses on the role and impact of the imported modern commercial arbitration system in China and how it can be harmonized with China's legal culture in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan have a singular political relationship. This distinctive relationship creates a unique impact on the nationality of the arbitral awards among the said countries. Each of these regions does not adopt the arbitral award of the other party as either a foreign arbitration award or a domestic arbitration award, but separately adopts the arbitral award in different jurisdictions within the same country. Therefore, in order to approve and enforce their arbitral awards in other areas, they have no choice to apply special laws or the conventions concluded between them, neither the New York Convention nor the individual arbitration laws in those areas. Therefore, this paper reviewed the convention and self-established laws among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regarding the approval and execution of the other arbitral awards. In addition, the domestic laws in China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan are compared with the New York Convention to ascertain the criteria for distinguishing domestic and foreign arbitral awards. This study also compared and analyzed what criteria were established for the determination of the nationality of the arbitral awards in the domestic law or the convention concluded in pan China. Through the analysis of these contents, the characteristics and problems of criterion for the determination of nationality among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan were identified. Based on the results, this study examined the precautions Korean companies entering these regions should use in the arbitration system in these areas.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.29-47
• /
• 2014

In recent years, with the rapid development of electronic commerce, companies engaging in e-commerce want to take advantage of fast and easy way to solve ever-growing disputes online. South Korea's e-commerce disputes are mainly solved by mediation process of Korea E-commerce Mediation Committee. The whole process of online mediation can be carried out by the network, with the advantages of high efficiency and speed. On the other hand, the introduction of CIETAC's online Arbitration Rules in China meets the actual needs. Especially the requirement of hearing trials' procedures should be easier and faster, making the dispute can be resolved in a short time. Furthermore, the whole process from applying to ruling is conducted online, which meets the needs of e-commerce business that want to solve the disputes faster and more efficient. In addition, the cost of online arbitration is much lower than the average arbitrations. The implementation of the CIETAC's Online Arbitration Rules, will further promote the development of e-commerce in China. With the increase of trade volume between China and Korea, the e-business are also increasing. Although South Korea has not yet implemented online arbitration until now, CIETAC's effort for combining arbitration and mediation have good implications for development Korea's e-commerce online dispute system to promote e-Commerce between Korea and China.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2014

With the development of Chinese commercial arbitration, there have been a large number of cases regarding the parties raised objection to the jurisdiction in arbitration and judicial practice. The argument relating to dealing with the subject matter, time limitation, identified subject of arbitration objection to the jurisdiction as well as the inadequate of Chinese Arbitration Law and relevant judicial interpretations has caused adverse impact on the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. This paper firstly look ar the overview of the arbitration jurisdiction objection, mainly on the arbitration jurisdiction objection determination and what is arbitration jurisdiction objection. The raise and abandonment of the arbitration objection to jurisdiction then will be analyzed in terms of subject, form, time and the legal consequences of giving up. The third part illustrates the handling of arbitration jurisdiction objection, main body, practices, procedures and whether the arbitration objection to jurisdiction is established. And the last part discuss how the condition of effectiveness on the arbitral agreement applies to through Chinese cases. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures relates to arbitration agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese partner.

• 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.24 no.2
• /
• pp.183-197
• /
• 2014

1. This study focuses on recent developments of trade transaction between Korea and China. The volume of trade is most rapidly increasing. There have been many items considered to ensure the proper, impartial, and rapid settlement of disputes in private laws by international arbitration. The article contains recent tendencies and proceedings of cases including place of arbitration, language, and so on. 2. The contract made between parties has led to some interpretational, legal questions. Interpretational questions rise mainly from differences of legal systems and legal questions on applying law. The characteristic features of the contract have different meanings, so some articles of the contract can be construed unlawful as a result. 3. As regards the Arbitration Act of Korea, Article 10, the Arbitration Agreement and Interim Measures by Court stipulate the following: A party to an arbitration agreement may request from a court art interim a measure of protection before or during arbitral proceedings. This article examines the application of Article 10 of the Arbitration Act of Korea.