• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2016

Recently, China has brought many political, economical, and ideological changes in order to complete the "socialistic market economy." In terms of legal system, they make much effort to seek compatibility and stability of law and order. China recognizes that the breakdown of corruption, which is rampant in society, is an essential short-cut for national development. To realize anti-corruption reformation, it strengthens the supervision of relatives and close officials of high-ranking government officials. Recently, China has suffered from expanded trade disputes internationally and has also experienced severe management-labor conflicts domestically due to economic recession. From 2012 onward, civil lawsuit and other litigations have increased sharply. Also, they face severe conflicts in the land system. It is expected that many disputes arise due to speculation on rural housing. Meanwhile, Mongolia expands the size of trade with Korea in mutual cooperation since their diplomatic relation in 1990 by entering more than 20 treaties and agreements. As Mongolia has rich natural resources and Korea is equipped with advanced science and technology, the two countries have opportunities to develop mutually beneficial cooperative relations. Recently, the arbitration system has attracted attention instead of litigation as a means of dispute settlement in line with the expansion of trade between Korea and Mongolia. This study would be helpful to figure out desirable methods for dispute settlements in case of trade disputes among Korean companies that would advance into China and Mongolia.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.73-90
• /
• 2017

After the conclusion of the $18^{th}$ CPCNationalCongress, the Shanghai Free Trade Zone was established, and the One Belt One Road Initiative was brought up. These measures accelerate the development of international commercial activities as related disputes grow in variety and quantity. To better settle international commercial disputes and increase the influence of China in this area, this article reviews and analyzes the development of international commercial arbitration in China. In the conclusion part, it gives suggestions for international commercial arbitration in China in order to improve and accelerate the further development of international commercial arbitration in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권4호
• /
• pp.37-67
• /
• 2023

중재는 공정하고 효율적인 분쟁해결 방법이다. 또 현대사회에서 경제발전으로 인하여 소송제도를 보완하는 매우 중요한 기능을 하고 있다. 중재제도는 고대부터 각국이 분쟁해결을 위해 각자의 전통적인 방식으로 형성되었으며, 법학의 발달과 함께 중세부터 점차적으로 법적 보장이 명확한 제도로 확립되었다. 중국에서 중재제도가 입법화 된 것은 근대 민국시대(民国时期)이지만, 분쟁 해결 방법으로 중재가 등장한 것은 고대 진한시대(秦汉时期)로 거슬러 올라간다. 현대에서 중재와 관련한 입법은 1995년에 공포한 '중재법'이다. 입법 당시 외국의 중재법과제도등에 대한 경험을 참고하였다. 하지만, 현재에 있어 중국 '중재법'은 여전히 많은 문제를 안고있다. 즉, 경제발전으로 인해 다양한 안건이 발생하면서 분쟁도 진화하고 있기 때문이다. 이에 중국의 현행 '중재법'은 개정 중에 있다. 중재법의 개정에 있어 중국의 역사적 경험을 어느 정도 참고할 수 있을 것이다. 중국에서 발생하는 분쟁 안건에 있어 중재가 고대부터 중세 및 근대, 그리고 현재에 이르기까지 경험과 특징을 살핌으로써 개정안에 좋은 시사점을 제공할 것이라 본다. 특히, 현대의 상사중재제도가 외국의 법문화로부터 중국에 도입된 후 그 역할과 효과에 대해 중국 전통의 중재제도를 분석함으로써 더 나은 개선방안을 제시 할 것이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 중국의 고대에서 현대에 이르기까지 중재제도의 기능에 대하여 연혁적으로 살펴보고, 현재 개정 중인 '중재법'에 중국 전통 중재제도가 주는 시사점이 무엇인지 검토한다. 이를 통해 장래 중국의 중재제도의 발전은 물론, 그 가치를 확인하는 좋은 연구자료가 될 것이라 본다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2018

As the disputes in the investment and civil/commercial sectors of China and Taiwan have increased due to active cross-strait economic exchanges, the Chinese government is addressing cross-strait disputes through various dispute resolution methods. In recent years, the Arbitration Center Across the Straits (ACAS) has been established to resolve disputes between cross-strait parties, while ACAS Arbitration Rules have been enacted and enforced. ACAS Arbitration Rules are prepared by referring to the Arbitration Act of China and Taiwan, the relevant provisions and practices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules and the cross-strait practical affairs of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, and the cross-strait practical affairs giving consideration to the specificity of the cross-strait relationship and the characteristics of economic and trade disputes. Therefore, this paper has compared the features and main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules with those of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. This refers to arbitration proceedings such as form and effect of arbitration agreement, decision of place of arbitration, and organization of arbitral tribunal; the provision of consolidation of multiple contracts and arbitration, and the provision of joinder of arbitration parties, which are implementing the "principle of party autonomy" with streamlining arbitration proceedings and reducing costs; "common, simple, and small sum arbitration proceedings which require shorter arbitration proceedings depending on the size of the arbitration object; and regulations on the "interconnection of mediation and conciliation" which is characteristic of China's arbitration system. Based on the above-mentioned main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules in China, there are some implications to be considered in the establishment of the Arbitration Rules of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission which will be applied to solve commercial and investment disputes arising from the Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation process, suggesting implications such as the need for the rapid composition and operation of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission, requirements for selecting arbitrators, expansion of the object of arbitration, specification of concreteness in deciding the place of arbitration, need to create a variety of arbitration proceedings, and application plan of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) or Third Power Arbitration Agency.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.263-290
• /
• 2004

Dispute plays a key role in maintaining the desirable performance of trade transaction. Although avoidance of disputes is always a priority, it is also important to prepare methods of dispute resolution which are efficient and economical. So, understanding of chinese dispute resolution system is a necessary requirement for successful business operation with chinese companies. This article analyzed and compared with the ways of trade disputes settlement system such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation in China in order to help the Korean traders who enter into business with the chinese companies to settle their disputes efficiently. This article suggests that two methods of negotiation and mediation are more likely to be effective than arbitration and litigation to resolve disputes with chinese companies because of problems of enforcement of arbitral award and the uncertainty of China's legal system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

As China has quickly emerged as a global economic power, the total number of international commercial disputes arbitrated by Chinese arbitral institutions has increased dramatically. Along with this, the annulment procedure of arbitral awards in China have been newly brought to the fore. In accordance with the historical background and the demand of the times, the Chinese annulment procedure of arbitral awards reveals distinctive Chinese features. Although it was enacted in the face ofof an unwarranted prejudice against the dispute settlement system by arbitration as well as a deep mistrust of domestic arbitral institutions, the annulment procedure of arbitral awards showed a certain degree of justification and rationality in its initial stages of legislation. However, it is also the case that it has not adapted well to new domestic or foreign arbitration circumstances in the last twenty years. At present, there is a keen interest in revisions to and debates on arbitration law of China. It is necessary to take an active part in the amendment discussion and process of arbitration law. Moreover, we need to reform the annulment procedure of arbitral awards in order to meet the global trend of arbitration law.