• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2012

China instituted arbitration law on September 1, 1995, after having legislated the law under the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, Chinese arbitration law has some problems related to the effectiveness of its arbitration agreement, unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law. Thus, parties in dispute who want to settle a dispute based on Chinese arbitration law as governing law have more to take into consideration because there could be serious problems related to the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, this paper attempted to analyze the classification of jurisdiction related to the authorization of effectiveness in arbitration agreement of arbitral organization and Chinese, verify the problems, and suggest the solutions. Moreover, the author tried to verify the problems in applying the law related to the authorization of effectiveness in Chinese arbitration agreements and suggest some improvements. This paper also suggests improvements and problems related to the selection of arbitral organizations among several conditions for effective arbitration agreement in Chinese arbitration law. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures related to arbitrations agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.161-181
• /
• 2014

This thesis, which mainly focuses on the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, will mainly deal with three characteristics and analyze the causes that directly or indirectly influence them. The first characteristic is China does not recognize ad hoc arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration is the initial form of arbitration, and it occupies an important position in many countries; however, China's judicial system does not recognize it. There are many disadvantages for building a system of ad hoc arbitration in China; i. e., the arbitration system in China is undeveloped and shot-time established, and it lacks social and civil society basis, along with a credit system, which the Western ad hoc arbitration relies on. The second characteristic is the existence of excessive judicial supervision and control over arbitration in China. Judicial supervision over arbitration has been the customary practice in each country of the modern world, but sharp variation exists in the legal stipulations and the courts' attitude toward the standard to be applied in the supervision over arbitration. In China, there has always been a controversy over judicial supervision, and the standards applied in the supervision over arbitration by courts in different regions are less than identical. The last characteristic is the existence of a combination of mediation with arbitration, which is called Arb-Med in China. Such means that in the process of arbitration, the arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case it is handling if both parties agree to do so. Under the Chinese law, Arb-Med may lead to a binding and enforceable outcome. However, it has several legal disadvantages and almost no country adopts this system. China still insists that this system will go on because Arb-Med was first made in China, and its effect was proven through long-time practice in CIETAC.

• 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
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.55-85
• /
• 1998

Each of China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea is in international trade one of the major countries in Asia and has been influenced by the Chinese character culture and the Civil law system. All these countries have their own commercial dispute resolution system for international trade dispute and commercial arbitration mechanism in their countries. They are making their own effort to internationalize and improve their commercial arbitration system. Among these countries China enacted a new arbitration law already. At that time Chinese arbitration law was referred to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration for internationalization of Chinese commercial arbitration system. China also internationalized the panel of arbitrators by increasing the foreign arbitrators of the panel of arbitrators of CIETAC. These measures adopted by China will be the model of dispute resolution and the commercial arbitration system in other major countries in Asia.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2019

As international trades between Korea and China increase, the number of civil disputes also increases. The civil dispute settlement system and the court system in China are distinctive from those of Korea. China has its own court systems which are characterized by the Chinese Communist System. Due to the influence of the decentralized local autonomy tradition, the case laws of each Province in China are not unified throughout the China. This is partly because only two instances are provided in China, and the parties cannot appeal to the Supreme People's Court of China unless there is a special reason. In Korea, three instances are provided and parties can appeal to the Supreme Court if a party so chooses. In addition, there are many differences in the judicial environment of China compared to Korea. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a Korean party and a Chinese party, arbitration is recommended rather than court litigation. This article examines the points to be considered for interim measures in China during arbitration. Where the seat of arbitration is Korea, interim measures cannot be taken by the order of the Chinese court in the middle of or before arbitration procedures. On the other hand, it is possible to take interim measures through the Chinese court in the middle of or before the arbitration procedure in China or Hong Kong. It also reviews the points to be noted in case of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China where permission from the upper Court is required to revoke or to deny the recognition or enforcement of a foreign-related or foreign arbitration award.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.31-50
• /
• 2020

The leading foreign arbitration agencies have established a representative office in China since 2015 to improve their arbitration agencies' problem being neglected by foreign parties. The Chinese government has enacted a system in which mediation services can be provided in China. The Chinese government seems to expect that if foreign arbitration agencies enter China and compete with Chinese arbitration agencies, Chinese arbitration agencies will also have an opportunity to develop through competition. In addition, it seems to reflect the expectation of Chinese parties that rather than using a foreign arbitration agency under foreign countries as the arbitration site to settle disputes, it would be more advantageous to arbitrate in China as the arbitration site with a foreign arbitration agency. The Chinese government has adopted a strategy to gradually open China's commercial arbitration service market to foreign arbitration agencies. Regarding the scope of arbitration services, China opened an arbitration service market limited to non-profit activities and foreign arbitration agencies in 2015 and then opened it to commercial activities in 2019. Also, the provision of arbitration services by foreign arbitration agencies is limited to foreign-invested companies registered in the Shanghai Pilot Trade Zone and parties in China, which are the counterparties of disputes between them. It will take a little more time to see how much the Chinese government will expand the number of parties that can use foreign arbitration agencies in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• 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.