• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2006

Enforcement of an arbitration award is an extremely important issue in arbitration. Arbitration, as a dispute settlement process, is rendered meaningless if it is not possible to enforce an award rendered by an arbitration tribunal. On the other hand, the present international arbitration system guided by the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law is established on the dual supervision from the national courts. The nationality of the international arbitral award closely relates to the supervision of the national court, and the national court is entitled to decide the nationality of the international award in accordance with the conditions set in its own domestic law. The national court may set aside arbitral award made in its territory while the foreign court may refuge enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to its own law and international convention to which it is a party. The conditions set in the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China are in agreement with those set in the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Chinese national court is entitled to set aside international awards made in China in accordance with the Chinese Law. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the Chinesr practice on the revocation of international commercial arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.25-53
• /
• 2013

With the Korea-China FTA negotiations currently on the line, the importance of research into the FTA dispute settlement system has been increasing. In this paper, a comparison of Korea and China's FTA dispute settlement agreements concluded with ASEAN is contemplated, and implications for the future of the Korea-China FTA have been suggested. The FTA dispute settlement agreements with ASEAN concluded by both Korea and China provide perspectives on both sides. This agreement with ASEAN also provides a standard for the potential Korea-China FTA agreement. Specifically, the basis of these agreements with ASEAN is the same, although there are clear distinctions, described in a more detailed manner. A problem arises when there has been no discussion on dispute settlement agreements in Korea, especially of the agreement with ASEAN, whereas the opposite is true of the China counterpart. In this paper, Chinese academic FTA dispute settlement agreement studies have been also examined.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.45-65
• /
• 2009

China and Taiwan had opened complete Three Linkages era December 2008, in the 59 years. The improvement of two countries' relationship is expecting to spur two countries more on the economy exchange. However the increasement of investment and trade between two countries will increase disputes to ratio. In order to settle the disputes related to economy between two countries, the most favorite way is to use arbitral system which involve less public power. After China and Taiwan recognized this point, they announced provisions which allow to solve controversies through the arbitration between parties of two countries since 1980, and prepared legal basis for dispute settlement between two countries. However, because China and Taiwan do not authorize each party as a country, the execution application made by each party based on New York Convention related to foreign arbitral awards cannot be approved. Because of these kind of reasons China and Taiwan should agree in order to guarantee mutual execution of arbitral awards which is an ultimate purpose of arbitration. However because of the political situation of two countries there are provisions related to execution for arbitral awards decided by each party. In this paper, I separated the provision related to mutual execution for arbitral awards of each party of China and Taiwan, examined exposed problems, and suggested ways to improve. It can support some of assistance and implication to establish basis of arbitral system between South Korea and North Korea and to suggest direction to derive through this kind of study.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.523-541
• /
• 2016

According to Chinese Arbitration Law, combination of mediation with arbitration means that in the process of arbitration, arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case they are handling, provided both parties agree to do so. If mediation succeeds and the parties reach a settlement agreement, the arbitrators may render a consent award or a written mediation statement in accordance with the contents of the settlement agreement. If mediation fails, the arbitration proceedings will be resumed until the case is concluded by making of an arbitral award. There is no formal name of this system in China, it is called "combination of mediation with arbitration", "mediation in arbitration process" or "arbitration-mediation", the author of this thesis select "arbitration-mediation" and make it simply as "Arb-Med". This thesis concentrates on three issues that arbitrators and the parties have to clarify and pay attention to once they choose to use Arb-Med. The first part is about the 'waivable problems', include waive the right to challenge a arbitrator who act as a mediator at the same time with parties' approval, as well as the question about the waiver of the arbitrator's duty to disclose confidential information obtained during mediation. The second part is 'public policy in Arb-Med', introduces the concept of public policy, the bias may arise the complaint about public policy, and the due procedure problem. And the last part is about the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, especially about the award including some contents which has relation to third party's interests.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권4호
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2023

국제상사중재에서 중재판정을 효율적으로 집행하기 위해 중재판정부가 중재판정을 내리기 전에 분쟁 당사자의 권리 혹은 재산을 즉각적으로 보호해주는 임시적 처분조치는 반드시 필요한 제도이고 많은 국가에서 중재판정부가 임시적 처분조치를 내릴 수 있도록 하고 있다. 중국상사중재에서도 임시적 처분조치를 인정하고는 있으나 중국의 경우에는 그 절차상 법원의 개입이 반드시 필요한데 이는 국제중재의 발전 방향과 맞지 않는다는 비판이 있다. 하지만 최근 중국도 중재활성화 측면에서 주요 중재기관들의 규칙을 개정함으로써 임시적 처분조치 부분에서 법원의 간섭을 최소화하는 방향으로 변화를 추구하고 있다. 이에 본 논문은 상사중재에서 임시적 처분의 국제적 추세를 먼저 살펴보고 중국 상사중재에서 임시적 처분조치가 어떤 방향으로 발전해 나가는지를 관련 사례와 법규를 분석하여 살펴보고자 한다. 이러한 연구를 통하여 한국 기업이 중국기업과 상사중재로 분쟁을 해결하고자 할 때 어떤 방식으로 임시적 처분 제도를 활용해야 하는지에 대한 실무적인 시사점을 제시하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2013

Recently, many international arbitration institutions have responded to the business requirements of their users and have revised their rules to enhance the time and cost efficiency. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) revised the international arbitration rule in 2011, introducing new arbitration mechanisms like the expedited procedure. Also other Asian arbitration institutions introduced the expedited procedure in their international arbitration rules. Now expedited procedures are regarded as a very attractive system in the field of international arbitration. Accordingly, this paper reviewed the expedited procedures of four Asian countries, including China(CIETAC), Hong Kong (HKIAC), Singapore(SIAC) and Korea(KCAB). The purpose of this study is to find out meaningful implications to improve the Korean system. Based on this review, some recommendations are suggested as follows. First, the scope of the expedited procedure has to be adjusted upward than the current 200 million won. Second, there should be a fee schedule only for the expedited procedure. Third, in case of small amount international disputes, written examination should be more used in the expedited procedure. Finally, KCAB should make strong efforts to improve the awareness and usage of the expedited procedure in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2021

Chinese courts seem to be indifferent or ignorant of truncated arbitration. In other words, the Chinese court canceled the arbitration award made by truncated arbitration except for the Pingdingsan Case among the four arbitration cases related to the domestic arbitration award reviewed in this paper on the ground that it violated the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure. A Chinese court has canceled the arbitration award by judging only based on the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the legal process of the violation of the arbitration procedure not by determining whether the domestic arbitration award made by the truncated arbitration meets the conditions for the application of truncated arbitration as stipulated in the Arbitration Rules. Moreover, it seems that the Chinese court made a serious error in the application of the relevant regulations in the Pingdingsan Case, which ruled that the truncated arbitration did not violate the legal process. In this case, the Chinese court admitted truncated arbitration under logic process that it was not necessary to wait until the final hearing to apply the truncated arbitraion because one arbitrator was absent before the final hearing, but the truncated arbitrator had already formed his/her opinion before the absence. However, in the case of Marshall Investment Corporation, a case related to foreign arbitration, the Chinese court rejected the approval and execution of the truncated arbitration award by strictly applying the laws and timing of the truncated arbitration. Since only one case has been identified in the main text, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment, but considering these cases, it seems to be that the Chinese courts apply different standards to domestic and foreign arbitration awards to determine the legality of truncated arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.185-226
• /
• 2015

As in some developing countries and more recently some developed countries worldwide and in the Asian region, Australia has faced significant internal opposition and public debate especially over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As outlined in Part II(1), concerns have re-emerged and escalated since the first-ever claim was brought against Australia regarding its tobacco plain packaging legislation, in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia under an old BIT with Hong Kong. However, Australia signed bilateral FTAs with Korea in 2014 and with China in 2015, including ISDS protections, prompting several sets of parliamentary inquiries (Part II(2)). Australia's close trading partner, New Zealand, had already concluded an FTA with China in 2008 that included more expansive ISDS-backed investor protections. In 2015, the New Zealand Parliament has been debating ratification of its own FTA with Korea, with ISDS also now attracting growing scrutiny, as elaborated in Part III below. In both bilateral FTA negotiations, the present Korean government seems to have reverted to a strong preference for concluding investment agreements with extensive ISDS protections, despite public and parliamentary debate around 2011 in the context of ratifying its FTA with the United States. As mentioned briefly in the concluding Part IV, Korea's stance has significant implications for the future trajectory of treaty-based ISDS - and indeed international arbitration more generally - in the Asia-Pacific region, and perhaps even globally.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.29-53
• /
• 2013

Chinese ISD has been changed a lot since the reformation policy in 1978 and it is expected that China will present a changed attitude toward its advantage as its industrialization continues to advance. This study generally examines the ISD in BIT and also considers not only the attitude of China with regard to ISD but also the changes on the Chinese side. Moreover, this study determines the areas on which the Chinese government focuses. In order to conduct this study, the author attempts to classify the attitudes on ISD into chronical change and treaty powers based on the analysis of BIT. In addition, the paper examines the main contents of ISD in BIT which previously involved an agreement such as arbitral institution, arbitral range, counter-measures of local country, standard for admitting the nationality of corporate investors, and recognition and enforcement of arbitral award. Based on analysis, this paper mentions matters that require attention and caution in the Korea-China FTA as regards investment negotiation, and also suggests instructions for investors who may face dispute with the Chinese government.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권40호
• /
• pp.131-143
• /
• 2016

On 12 July 2016, China's maritime claim to most of the South China Sea (SCS) based on the so-called nine-dash line was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted under Annex VII to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning issues in the South China Sea including the legality of the so-called "nine-dashed line", the status of certain maritime features and their corresponding maritime entitlements, together with the lawfulness of certain actions by China which the Philppines, in a case brought in 2013, alleged were violations. As having the Tribunal determined that China's claim had no legal grounds in UNCLOS, thus undermining China's claims, and establishing that China has no exclusive legal rights to control the area roughly the size of India. There are some major implications from the Tribunal's ruling in the Arbitration award. These include implications on: how to delimit the maritime boundary in disputed waters, how to promote maritime confidence-building measures, how to safeguard maritime safety and security, and how to promote the rule of law in the SCS. Since its application of UNCLOS in East Asia, it has been obvious that the only way to resolve maritime disputes in the region is to build strong maritime cooperative partnerships under the auspices of the rule of law.