• The Korean Journal of Health Service Management
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.21-34
• /
• 2013

Hospitals in Korea are enforcing a quality control over 119Emergency Medical Services to increase the survival rate of Out of Hospital Cardiac arrest patients. This study is to analyze the factors that effect the survival rate of Out of hospital Cardiac arrest patients by comparing the results of before and after the quality control enforcement. Cardiac arrest patients can be assorted into pre-decision group and decision group. The study analyzed the survival factors which was based on the adequate use of 119 BLS and ACLS usage rates, response time of 119EMS, qualification of ambulance worker, number of EMS team members, and adequate use of AED according to ECG diagnosis. The analyzation was done over total 1,233 of Cardiac arrest patients from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011 After the enforcement of the quality control, the usage of Vital sign check and BLS showed a big difference. Especially, as the usage of ECG showed a significant difference, Shockable rhythm, which is the most important to Cardiac arrest patients, also showed a significant difference. After the enforcement of quality control, the performance of ACLS showed a significant difference in IV. The study showed 119 ambulance workers provided better service in Vital sign and BLS and ACLS after the enforcement of quality control. It is considered a 119 ambulance service effects the survival rate of Cardiac arrest patients. Therefore, it can increase the survival rate and it is necessary to continue a quality control.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• The Journal of Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences
• /
• v.31 no.5B
• /
• pp.390-396
• /
• 2006

Policy-based Network Management(PBNM) in the Mobile Ad-hoc network(MANETs) requires additional, reliable and efficient mechanism over PBNM in wired network. Thus, it is important that the management system in MANETs should cluster the moving nodes and manage their movements in an effective manner. In this thesis, I propose a mechanism for the policy-based management in ad hoc networks in which I consider several methods to discover the Policy Decision Point(PDP), set the management area, and manage the movements of Policy Enforcement Point(PEP) nodes in the PBNM system. Moreover, COPS-PR is extended for the mechanism. Finally, I analyze and validate the results through simulations.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.35-45
• /
• 2019

This study revises current feasibility evaluation guideline for agricultural infrastructure improvement project considering recent changes in social and economic environment in rural area. We use an AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) approach to consider qualitative evaluation items in policy enforcement and balanced regional development as well as quantitative items in current economic analysis in the process of feasibility evaluation and decision making. The criteria system is composed of three level hierarchy. In the first level which consists of economic analysis, policy analysis, and regional development analysis, economic analysis was ranked top with relative weight of 0.45 and regional development analysis the lowest with 0.22. In the second level which consists of three evaluation items under policy analysis, consistency in policy enforcement, risk factors, and special evaluation factors, consistency in policy enforcement was ranked top. Finally, 13 detailed evaluation items in the third level were surveyed and ranked by using a comprehensive criticality vector. The result shows that the three most important evaluation items are 'degree of underdevelopment', 'spill-over effect of regional economy' and 'consistency with related planning and policy direction'.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.225-261
• /
• 2005

Under Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall supply (a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof and (b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In addition, if the arbitral award or arbitration agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, and the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. In a case where a Vietnamese company which had obtained a favorable arbitral award in Vietnam applied for recognition and enforcement of a Vietnamese arbitral award before a Korean court, the recent Korean Supreme Court Judgment (Docket No. 2004 Da 20180. 'Judgment') rendered on December 12, 2004 has alleviated the document requirements as follows : The Judgment held that (i) the party applying for recognition andenforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not have to strictly comply with the document requirements when the other party does not dispute the existence and the content of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement and that (ii) in case the translation submitted to the court does not satisfy the requirement of Article 4, the court does not have to dismiss the case on the ground that the party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award has failed to comply with the translation requirement under Article 4, and instead may supplement the documents by obtaining an accurate Korean translation from an expert translator at the expense of the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In this regard, the author fully supports the view of the Judgment. Finally, the Judgment held that, even though the existence of a written arbitration agreement was not disputed at the arbitration, there was no written arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and wenton to repeal the judgment of the second instance which admitted the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, the author does not share the view of the Judgment. The author believes that considering the trend of alleviating the formality requirement of arbitration agreements under Article 2 of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court could have concluded that there was a written arbitration agreement because the defendant participated in thearbitration proceedings in Vietnam without disputing the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement. Or the Supreme Court should have taken the view that the defendant was no longer permitted to dispute the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement because otherwise it would be clearly against the doctrine of estoppel.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2016

The preferential Rules of Origin (RoO) govern tariff preferences that are given in accordance with the FTA. However, relatively few studies have been devoted to the procedures in settling disputes that are relevant to RoO under the FTA. This study is a first attempt at analyzing the applicability and the potential improvement in dispute settlement procedures in FTAs targeted at the preferential RoO. By exploring three dispute cases involving the preferential RoO, it is suggested that restrictiveness, complexity, and uncertainty that are inherent in the preferential RoO may trigger political tension and dispute. Forming a panel that is capable of mitigating political tension, facilitating participation and early cooperation of experts and stakeholders, and establishing a well-structured enforcement procedure are essential in dispute settlement procedures to resolve disputes involving cases on RoO. Furthermore, the current dispute settlement procedure that hinders the private sector's access should be changed to one that is more open to private sector entities, such as companies, to facilitate the enforcement of the decision. Given that more improved FTA dispute settlement procedure may guarantee the enforcement and application of the FTA preferential treatment in relation with more politically powerful states and foster genuine free trades, more in-depth studies must be conducted on this topic.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.41-54
• /
• 1995

Recently our government intended to change the present fisheries management system into the allocated catch quota system, which is to increase the income of fishermen and to recover the depleted resources up to a desirable level. This paper is to find out the difficulties of introducing the allocated catch quota system into our fisheries mangement system and to reduce the possible errors for the enforcement of this system. The allocated catch quota system can be devided by two kinds, the one is to allocate among industries or fisheries with total allowable catch(TAC) and the other is to allocate among fishermen or individual vessels with individual fish quota(ITQ). The latter is a much advanced control system compared with the former and is what this study treats. This paper reviewed the case of Newzealand and Canada where the ITQ system is introduced earlier and classified the problems by two parts for successful introduction into Korea as follows : (1) allocation method problems, (2) enforcement problems. For the first part the problems to be considered are 1) a scientific oath qouta calculation system is necessary, 2) the quota must be opened, 3) by-catch problems. 4) interactions with adjoining countries. For the second part the problems to be considered are 1) monitoring system, 2) quota transferability, 3) quota flexibility, 4) the enforcement of the system must be connected with the reduction of fishing power, 5) a mass communication and decision making system between government and fishermen is essential.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.