• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.259-277
• /
• 2011

In 2008, North Korea revised its Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. To some extent, the new Act reflected such international standard of arbitration as UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In this paper, the said Act will be evaluated, and then cooperation ways of South-North Korea on Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration will be suggested. In 2007, the Ministry of Unification has designated the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board as Inter-Korean Arbitration Committee and has made efforts to prepare follow-up measures on the two Agreements of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration. In 2008 however, the follow-up measures has in fact been suspended. In order to revitalize the Inter-Korean commercial arbitration, some prerequisites must be satisfied. First, Inter-Korean Arbitration Committee for Inter-Korean commercial arbitration should re-open as soon as possible. Second, as North Korea recently shows interest in joining the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards(now so called New York Convention), Governmental Authority of Rep. of Korea should also actively assist and support their joining in New York Convention. Third, both Korean governments should carry out joint study on raising the efficiency of the arbitration system which they will use. Fourth, comparative study on arbitration systems used in both countries should be conducted. Also, it may is very timely to discuss the issue in international arbitration community such as "North-East Asia International Arbitration Conference" or other similar events. In conclusion, continuous study on prevention of commercial disputes between South-North Korea and ways to resolve disputes when they arise should be conducted.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.157-181
• /
• 2007

The commercial relationship between South and North Korea is defined under the concept of economic relation and cooperation. To resolve any dispute that can arise from the trade and investment relations between South and North Korea, 'Agreement on the Procedures to Resolve Commercial Arbitration of South-North Korea' came into force in August 2003. Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea will be organized as the member lists of the committee were exchanged in July 2006 between South and North Korea. This committee must become a central system to settle the trade and investment disputes between South and North Korea. North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act was enacted to provide the foreign investors with the safe measures in their investments such as dispute resolution. But this Act can not dispute the trade and investment disputes between South and North Korea. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the activation of arbitration between South and North Korea by studying Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea introduced by Agreement on the Procedures to Resolve Commercial Arbitration of South-North Korea and Agreement on the Construction and Operation of Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea and finding the problems and solutions of Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea.

• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2005년도 후기학술대회논문집
• /
• pp.94-97
• /
• 2005

Seaworthiness is an important part of the carrier's obligation in the carriage of goods by sea. Especially seaworthiness of the ship is one of the most important obligations of the carrier in the field of international transport law. Therefore it will be important to examine the expected impacts by adopting a continuing duty of seaworthiness in UNCITRAL Draft Instrument from the Korea point of view because Korean Commercial Act provides that carriers are only obliged to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage. This paper examines the concept of the seaworthiness and analyses the provisions of the Draft Instrument for the duty of seaworthiness in comparison with the Korean Commercial Act.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.183-221
• /
• 2013

종래의 우주활동은 국가주도의 우주개발을 통해 과학적 혹은 군사적 목적의 활동이 커다란 비중을 차지해 왔으나 점차 우주의 실용적 이용 내지 실용화에 이르는 과정에서 민간기업이 참여하는 상업적 우주활동이 현격한 증가를 보게 되었고 다수의 국가들이 독자적으로 또는 민간기업과의 협력이나 지역적 기구와의 공동사업을 통해서 우주의 상업적인 활용에 가담하고 있다. 그 발전의 폭도 원격탐사, 우주통신, 우주발사 서비스 및 제조업, 에너지 생산분야, 우주운송 및 보험 등 다양한 영역으로 확대일로에 있다. 그런 가운데 특히 각국은 우주의 상업화가 불기피한 발전방향이라는 점을 인식하면서 요람기의 우주산업을 육성하는데 노력을 경주해 오는 한편 국제적인 측면에서는 주로 안전 보장을 위한 고려에서부터 자국의 활동에 관한 국제적 책임(우주조약 제6조)을 이행하기위한 목적으로 우주산업에 대해 엄격한 국가적 규제에 따르도록 해온 것이 사실이다. 이러한 우주에서의 상업적 활동 내지 민간차원의 이용이 우주조약 등 관련 우주국제법의 적용을 받는 우주활동인가 여부에 관해서는 국내외적으로 논란이 있었던 것은 사실이지만 앞서도 논한 바 있듯이 우주조약에서 규정하고 있는 바대로 모든 국가와 전 인류의 이익을 위해 수행되어야 하는 우주활동속에 포함되는 것으로 보아야 할 것이다. 여기서 주목해야 될 것은 상업적 활동 내지 민간차원의 우주이용에 관해 우주국제법의 태도이다. 물론 민간기업의 형태를 취한 상업우주발사활동을 규제하는 일반국제우주법의 규칙은 아직 명료하지 않다. 게다가 상업적 이용의 진전에 따라 대두되는 문제에 대해서 기존의 우주국제법이 한계점을 드러내고 있는 것이 주지의 사실이고 새로이 생성중에 있는 법규범과도 상호 모순되거나 입법적 불비가 있을 수 있는 만큼 이를 극복할 수 방안이 국제 공동체의 부단한 노력을 통해 마련되어야 할 것이다. 현재 우주조약이나 책임협약 등 우주관련 조약에 따르면 기본적으로 국가는 비정부단체나 개인 등의 우주활동에서 야기되는 모든 손해에 대해 국제책임을 지는 것을 원칙으로 하고 있는 바 이를 위해 각 국가는 국내적으로 그들의 활동에 대한 감독책임을 부담하고 있으며 이는 구체적으로는 장차 우주의 상업적 이용을 허가 및 규제하는 당해국가들의 국내법에 반영되어야 할 것이다. 그밖에도 앞서 본 각국의 국내법적 차원에서의 정비도 법리적인 측면에서나 국제협력의 관점에서 기존의 우주국제법과 조화를 이루도록 해야 하겠지만 일반국제법 내지 특별우주법규칙에 있어서도 상업적 우주활동의 발전 추세에 부합하고 또한 양 법체계가 조화를 이룰 수 있도록 재검토하고 경우에 따라 새로운 법제를 마련해야할 필요성도 제기되고 있다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.419-477
• /
• 2017

우주 공간은 천연 자원의 보고로, 미래 인류의 지속적인 생존과 번영을 위해, 언젠가는 개척해야 할 영역이다. 문제는 우주에 존재하는 수많은 자원들의 수송, 이용, 처분과 같은 민간 차원의 배타적 소유권 행사가 국제법적으로 가능하냐는 것이다. 1967년 제정된 우주조약의 경우에는 우주에 대한 국가적 소유는 금지하고 있으나 사적 소유에 대하여는 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 따라서 민간 기업과 같은 사적 주체에 의한 우주 자원의 재산적 권리가 가능한 것은 아닌가 하는 해석을 할 수 있다. 지난 2015년 11월 25일 미국은, 이와 관련한 '상업우주발사경쟁력법'(CSLCA)을 제정하면서, 민간 기업의 소행성 자원과 우주 자원의 점유, 소유, 이용, 수송, 처분 등에 관한 재산적 권리를 명시적으로 인정하였다. 본 논문에서는 이와 같은 문제에 주목하여, 2015년 CSLCA의 구조와 법적 쟁점들을 검토해 보았다. 특히 우주 자원의 사적 소유권 쟁점을 중심으로, 국제우주법 체제의 제규정들과 비교 분석하였고, 이를 통해 CSLCA 제4편 SREU Act의 타당성 여부를 검증해 보았다. 결론은, 새로운 우주 시대를 위해 우주 자원의 '사적 소유권'을 보장할 필요가 있다는 것이다. 구체적으로는, 우주 천체와 우주 자원을 구분하여 파악하되, (1) 우주 천체로부터 분리되지 않은 비추출 우주 자원의 경우에는 사적 소유를 금지하며, (2) 우주 천체로부터 분리되어 추출된 우주 자원의 경우에는 사적 소유를 인정하여야 한다고 본다. 나아가 1967년 우주조약은 현대적 입법 환경에 맞추어, 새로운 우주 산업 시대를 보다 효율적으로 설계할 수 있는 방향으로 개선되어야 할 것이다.

• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.81-93
• /
• 2017

This study aims to investigate laws and standards(including technical guidelines) related to safety criteria for 22 kitchen machines frequently used in commercial kitchens. The study was based on literature survey, interviews with charge persons in kitchen machines manufacturing companies, cafeteria providing group meals and relevant association, and web surfing. The results showed that there are two types of safety criteria such as legally forced ones by laws and optional ones by national industrial standards or technical guidelines. High pressure safety control act, safety control and business of liquefied petroleum gas act and city gas business act prescribed gas use apparatus safety criteria, rational energy utilization act did those of pressure vessel such large rotary caldron, industrial health and safety act did those of food processing machinery, and electrical appliances safety control act did those of electrical kitchen appliances. Compulsory or optional standards or guidelines related to safety criteria for kitchen machines were presented by 22 kitchen machines. Safety devices shown in the laws, standards and guidelines were also summarized by kitchen machines and their risk factors.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2020

The Scope of Application of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and Foreign Investment Act This article examines whether the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and the Foreign Investment Act of North Korea apply to South Korean parties or companies. This article analyzes laws and agreements related to economic cooperation between South Korea and North Korea. Furthermore, this article compares and evaluates laws related to foreign investment and enacted in North Korea. Now, North Korea's door is closed due to economic sanctions against it, but it will be opened soon. Thus, this article prepares for the future opening of North Korea's markets. Is there a rule of laws in North Korea or just a ruler? Are there laws in North Korea? North Korea has enacted a number of legislation to attract foreign investors, referring to those Chinese laws. For example, North Korea enacted the Foreigner Investment Act, the Foreigner Company Act, the Foreign Investment Bank Act, the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, the Foreign Economic Contract Act, the International Trade Act, and the Free Economy and Trade Zone Act, among others. Article 2 (2) of the Foreign Investment Law of North Korea states, "Foreign investors are corporations and individuals from other countries investing in our country." It is interpreted that South Korea is not included in the "other countries" of this definition. According to many mutual agreements signed by South Korea and North Korea, the relationship between the two Koreas is a special relation inside the Korean ethnic group. An arbitration between a South Korean party and a North Korean party has the characteristics of both domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. If the South Korea and North Korea Commercial Arbitration Commission or the Kaesong Industrial Complex Arbitration Commission is not established, the possibility of arbitration by the Chosun International Trade Arbitration Commission, established under North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, should be examined. There have been no cases where the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act is applied to disputes between parties of South Korea and North Korea. It might be possible to apply the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act by recognizing the "foreign factor" of a dispute between the South Korean party and North Korean party. It is necessary to raise legislative clarifications by revising the North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act as to whether Korean parties or companies are included in the scope of this Act's application. Even if it is interpreted that South Korean parties or companies are not included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, disputes between South Korean companies and North Korean companies can be resolved by foreign arbitration institutes such as CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong, or SIAC in Singapore. Such arbitration awards could be enforced in North Korea pursuant to Article 64 of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. This is because the arbitration awards of foreign arbitration institutes are included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. The matter is how to enforce the North Korean laws when a North Korean party or North Korean government does not abide by the laws or their contracts. It is essential for North Korea to join the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.71-92
• /
• 2012

The significant increase in international trade over the last few decades has been accompanied by an increase in the number of commercial disputes between Korea and India. Understanding the Indian dispute resolution system, including arbitration, is necessary for successful business operation with Indian companies. This article investigates characteristics of India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act in order to help then traders who enter into business with Indian companies to settle their disputes efficiently. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act(1996) based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976, has a number of characteristics including the following: (i) this act covers ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration (ii) parties to the arbitration agreement have no option except arbitration in case of any dispute (iii) the parties can choose their own laws, places, procedures, and arbitrators (iv) the decision of the arbitrators is final and binding (v)role of the court has been minimized and (vi) enforcement of foreign awards is recognized. However, there have been some court decisions that have not been in tune with the spirit and provisions of the Act. Therefore, Korean companies insert the KCAB's standard arbitration clause into their contracts and use India's ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) Methods to strategically resolve their disputes. Additionally, Korean companies investigate Indian companies' credit standing before entering into business relations with them.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.59-91
• /
• 2006

The Arbitration Act of Korea was promulgated in 1966. Since the promulgation of Arbitration Act of Korea, consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2002. Among the various set of amendments, those of 1999 were designed to accommodate the UNCITRAL Model Law on international Commercial Arbitration of 1985. Korea has acceded to special international conventions on dispute settlement such as the New York Convention of 1958 and the Washington Convention of 1965. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) administers the arbitration proceedings in accordance with its Arbitration Rules approved by the Korean Supreme Court. Since the establishment of the first Arbitration Rules in 1966. consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1981, 1989, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2004. The KCAB plans to enact the International Arbitration Rules, which will be available to disputing parties in addition to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In 2005, arbitration applications received at KCAB recorded a historic high at 213 cases, an increase of 22% from 175 cases in 2000. But in 2005, the total amount involved in the arbitration cases decreases to US$ 129 million, a decline of 63% from US$ 346 million in 2000. The KCAB should take the following measures for activating the commercial arbitration system: the globalization of KCAB, the advertisement of arbitration system, the security of qualified arbitrators, and the enhancement of the secretariat service. In conclusion, the KCAB should make efforts for the development of the arbitration system and for the upgrade of customer satisfaction. Moreover the KCAB should make further efforts to grow into a global arbitration institution as well as strengthening relations with international arbitration institutions.