• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제36권
• /
• pp.111-140
• /
• 2007

This paper intends to review the qualifications of arbitrator, the disclosure of disqualifications by arbitrator, the challenge grounds of arbitrator, and the challenge procedure of arbitrator under the arbitration laws and rules. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law on person shall be precluded by reason of his nationality from acting as an arbitrators. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenge an arbitrator. Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or any circumstance that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. In conclusion, an arbitrator has a responsibility not only to the parties but also to the process of arbitration, and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and fairness of the process will be preserved.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.45-66
• /
• 2016

The FAA provides that a district court may make an order vacating an arbitration award upon the application of any party to the arbitration where there was evident partiality on the arbitrator's behalf. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. held that arbitrators must disclose to the parties "any dealing that might create an impression of possible bias." Justice White attempted to limit the scope of evident partiality to instances where an arbitrator has a "substantial interest" in the dispute before disclosure is required. The Second Circuit held that if an arbitrator thinks that a nontrivial conflict of interest might exist, the arbitrator must either (i) conduct an investigation into the potential conflict, or (ii) disclose to the parties why he or she thinks there could be a conflict. Further, the arbitrator must disclose his or her intent not to investigate the matter. By utilizing a reasonable impression of partiality standard, the Ninth Circuit held that evident partiality can exist despite an arbitrator's actual acknowledgement of a conflict, and if an arbitrator fails to discharge his or her duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest, his or her constructive knowledge of the conflicts can give rise to evident partiality.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.315-341
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 1999년에 전면 개정된 한국의 중재법과 1925년에 제정된 미국의 연방중재볍 및 2000년에 제시된 개정통일중재법의 내용 중 중재인의 권한과 의무들에 관한 규정들을 비교 분석한 것이다. 우선, 미국 중재법의 기본법이라 할 수 있는 연방중재법은 1925년에 제정된 이래 중재 이슈에 관한 발전들을 담아내지 못한 채 진부한 과거의 법률을 그대로 유지하고 있다. 따라서, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 중재판정과 같은 기본적인 권한 규정 외에 중재인의 임시적 처분이나 민사책임의 면제, 고지 의무등 새롭게 진전된 중재 환경의 변화나 논의들이 다루어지지 않고 있다. 그러나, 미국의 통일주법위원전미협의회가 주체가 되어 제시한 2000년의 개정통일중재법은 중재이론이나 케이스의 발전들을 반영하였을 뿐만 아니라, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 훨씬 구체적인 규정들을 담아내고 있다. 개정통일중재법은 중재언의 권한을 개정 이전보다 훨씬 강화하는 대신, 보다 엄격한 윤리적 의무를 부과함으로써 균형을 유지하려 하고 있다. 특히, 중재인의 올바른 중재판정을 이끌어 내기 위해 증거 확보에 있어 보다 강한 절차적 권한을 부여하고 있는 것이 특정이다. 아울러, 중재인으로 하여금 임시적 처분을 내릴 수 있는 권한을 부여하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 징벌적 배상을 결정할 수 있게까지 규정하고 있다. 그러나, 중재인의 절차적 권한의 강화는 동법이 의도한 바와는 달리 중재를 재판에 유사한 구조로 만듦과 동시에, 중재의 신속성과 최종성을 해치는 결과를 초래하는 것이 아닌가 하는 우려와 지적을 낳기도 한다. 한편, 한국의 중재법은 중재인의 임시적 처분권한과 고지의무를 규정하고 있지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법과 달리 민사적 책임면제 규정을 두고 있지는 않다. 특히, 한국 중재법에서 중재인은 증거를 수집하기 위하여 당사자의 임의적 협조에 의존하지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법에서는 증거개시제도까지 채택하고, 제 3 자도 소환할 수 있는 등 중재인의 절차적 권한이 훨씬 강하므로 한국 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한은 미국의 개정통일중재법에서의 그것보다는 훨씬 제한적이다. 한국의 중재를 더욱 실효성 있게 하기 위해서는 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한에 관한 규정을 보완해 주어야 할 것이다. 또 성공적인 중재를 위해서는 중재인의 전문성과 함께 윤리의식이 중요하므로 상사중 재원은 별도의 중재인 윤리규정을 제정해야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2000

At its thirty-second session in 1999, the UNCITRAL had before it the requested note entitled "Possible future work in the area of international commercial arbitration." After concluding the discussion on its future work in the area of international commercial arbitration, it was agreed that the priority items for the working group should be conciliation, requirement of written form for the arbitration and enforceability of interim measures of protection. the Commission entrusted the work to the Working Group on Arbitration which held its thirty-second session at Vienna from 20 to 31 March 2000. The Working Group discussed agenda item 3 on the basis of the report of Secretary General entitled "Possible uniform rules on certain issues concerning settlement of commercial disputes : conciliation, interim measures of protection, written form for arbitration agreement." At its thirty-three session in 2000, the UNCITRAL had before it the report of Secretary General on agenda item 3 discussed by the Working Group. The Working Group discussed the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; (1) Admissibility of certain evidence in subsequent judicial or arbitral proceedings ; (2) Role of conciliatior in arbitration or court proceedings ; (3) Enforceability of settlement agreements reached in conciliation proceedings ; (4) Other possible items for harmonized treatment : a) Admissibility or desirability of conciliation by arbitrators b) Effect of an agreement to conciliate on judicial or arbitral proceedings c) Effect of conciliation on the running of limitation period d) Communication between the conciliator and parties ; disclosure of information e) Role of conciliator. It was generally considered that decisions as to the form of the text to be prepared should be made at a later stage when the substance of prepared solutions would become clearer. However, it was noted that model legislative provisions seemed to be appropriate form for a number of matters proposed to be discussed in the area conciliation. There was general support in the Working Group for the proposition to perpare a legislative regime governing the enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by arbitral tribunals. It was generally considered that legislative regime should apply to enforcement of interim measures issued in arbitration taking place in State where enforcement was sought as well as outside that State. It was generally observed that there was a need for provisions which conformed to current practice in international trade with regard to requirements of written form for arbitration agreement. The view was adopted by the Working Group that the objective of ensuring a uniform interpretation of the form requirement that responded to the needs of international trade could be achieved by : preparing a model legislative provision clarifying, for avoidance of doubt, the scope of article 7(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration : and adopting a declaration, resolution or statement addressing the interpretation of the New York Convention that would reflect a broad understanding of the form requirement. There was general agreement in the Working Group that, in order to promote the use of electronic commerce for international trade and leave the parties free to agree to the use of arbitration in the electronic commerce sphere, article II(2) of the New York Convention should be interpreted to cover the use of electronic means of communication as defined un article 2 of the Model Law on Electronic Commerce and that it required no amendment to do that. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider to the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues concerning conciliation and arbitration proceedings, possibly indicating whether future work should be towards a legislative text or non-legislative text.