• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2023

In international commercial arbitration, interim measures play a crucial role in enforcing arbitral awards by prohibiting a party from hiding assets or destroying any evidence which are critical during arbitral proceedings before the arbitral tribunal renders a final award. While Chinese commercial arbitration system acknowledges interim measures, it has faced criticism for perceived deviations from the evolving international arbitration trends. Nevertheless, recent developments indicate that China is actively aligning itself with the global trend in promoting international commercial arbitration, leading to notable changes in interim measures. This paper aims to examine the prevailing international trends of interim measures in commercial arbitration and conduct an analysis of the current status of interim measures in Chinese commercial arbitration by analysing some relevant cases and regulations. By doing so, it can provide practical insights to Korean companies on how to effectively utilize interim measures when they settle their disputes by arbitration with Chinese counterparts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2007

The law of Jus Rerem of China enacted on March 16, 2007 came into force from October 1st, 2007. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem. This means that all three nations of Northeast Asia have formally and substantially similar legal terms and conceptions. Therefore, they will be reciprocally influenced on the legal matters related Jus Rerem. In the year 1949 when China, as a communist country, was originally established without the private ownership system, the law of Jus Rerem was not introduced. Since the reform and the open-economy policy in the year 1978 came into force, it has become important that newly acknowledged private property has been stipulated by the law of Jus Rerem. Arbitration Law of China is enacted on August 31th, 1994 and came into force from September 1st, 1995. It is a basic law which rules Chinese arbitration system. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem, "conformed with the 21st century", by solving a lot of issues in dispute. A socialistic idea, a traditional Chinese idea and realistic conditions of the market economy were integrated into the law of Jus Rerem. It would have a very good effect on the growth and prosperity of China.

• 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.20 no.3
• /
• pp.93-120
• /
• 2010

In 1978, Chinese reform and opening caused a big changes in Chinese labor relationship. Through reforming and opening, China gave up part of state ownership system and group ownership system, permitted private ownership system, and also opened the way for capitalists to ride again. Since China was established, the labor relationship ceased for 30 years has been appeared. However because the top priority aim of China's reform was economic growth, the protection of the rights and interests of labor was pushed back on the policy priority list. China takes foreign capitals based on cheap labor force quickly and China come up the worldwide plants. Since reformed, China keeps an economic growth rate of 9.7% annually for 30years. This economic growth is based on labor's sacrifice. However, Chinese fast economic growth causes side effects such as increasement of the gap between the wealthy and the poor, increasement of unbalanced development between regions, and the increasement of conflict between labor and management. Especially, according to changes in labors' level of consciousness, the labors recognized that their rights and interests are exploited by employers. Therefore, the labor dispute is continuously increasing. Chinese government changes their policy from the policy focusing on enterprise development to the policy protecting labor's rights and interests. In order to protect labor's rights and interests, China conducts labor contract law and labor dispute conciliation arbitration law in 2008. This kind of changes in Chinese labor environment affect a lot to Korean companies which already entered into China or are willing to enter. According to studying on present situation and resolution system in Chinese labor dispute, this paper suggests the proper countermeasure related to labor dispute of Korean companies which entered in China. First, the success rate of labor dispute conciliation by enterprise labor dispute conciliation committee is around 20% during recent several years and the success rate by year is in decline. Therefore, when labor dispute is occurred, our companies which entered into China better use other labor dispute methods such as negotiation and arbitration than conciliation in order to settle a conflict. Second, from the Korean enterprises entered in China point of view, there exists a problem not to sue except special cases which provided in the law even though they are dissatisfied with arbitrate judgment. Thus, when labor dispute occurred, Korean enterprises try to do best to settle the dispute through negotiation. However, in case of that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, they have to attend in the arbitration as if it is a last chance. Third, Korean enterprises keep in mind that dispute handling procedures between labor union and users or between labor group and users are different, and then deal with separately. Thus, dispute between labor and users have to follow arbitrate procedures as a necessary procedure, but in case of dispute related to group contract, namely dispute against labor union, labor dispute can be settled by arbitrate or suit, so after figuring out the situation exactly, it is necessary to select more advantageous way in order to settle the dispute. Moreover, in case of the dispute between labor union, they have to keep in mind that conciliation procedures cannot be used.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.113-138
• /
• 2020

Using the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system to resolve disputes, rather than going through lawsuits, is used widely all across the world. The mediation system in the ADR has many advantages. Mediation is an ancient Chinese original dispute settlement system. The Chinese government tries to insure mediation to settle the disputes in business activities. There has been a stark increase in disputes following economic development and, in order to solve this, the Supreme People's Court has placed mediation as a priority in civil suits. In particular, China intends to powerfully move forward by building a "Moderately Prosperous Society" and to eradicate poverty as this year's economic and social development goal. Solving disputes through mediation would, above all else, be effective and be appropriate to the national development's goals. China should also provide policies that are fair and do not damage equality while it operates the mediation system.

• 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.25 no.3
• /
• pp.113-133
• /
• 2015

This article reviews some recent decisions of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the recognition and enforcement of several South Korean arbitral awards. It explains the implementation of the New York Convention in the PRC and in particular the so-called Report System under the current Mainland Chinese law and judicial practice. It identifies some deficiencies in the People's Courts' approaches to the application and interpretation of the New York Convention and argues that the Mainland Chinese courts should adopt the pro-enforcement principle in the determination of the relevant issues under the New York Convention. It proposes further enhancement of the Report System and that the current categorization of 'domestic, foreign-related and foreign' in the context of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards needs to be further reviewed and clarified by the SPC. Last but not the least, it recommends some steps that South Korean parties should take to enhance the enforceability of South Korean Arbitral Awards in Mainland China.

• 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.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.