• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.153-185
• /
• 2006

This article deals with the Improvement of Compulsory Arbitration System on Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act in Korea. If a labor dispute occcur, the settlement of labor dispute must be reached for the parties' own accord. The autonomy of the parties concerned is the fundamental principle in the settlement of labor dispute. If the Rights Which are guaranteed by art. 33 Constitutional Law belong to civil liberties, we should consider Trade Union Act as the restriction of basic rights. Arbitration is a procedure which permits the most positive intervention by the arbitrator. It is carried out by an arbitration committe which is composed of three arbitrators appointed by the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission. Compulsory arbitration system of the labor for parties should be improved. In case of necessary public enterprises, more strict requirements on assembly for labor disputes should be prepared and the government should support institutions to prevent labor-management disputes by educating experts on labor-management relations and improving the quality of arbitration.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.699-733
• /
• 2000

This article analyzes the state-of-play of WTO dispute settlement for first four and a half years. Remarkable points found on this analysis are as follows: First, the Quad consisting of the United States, the European Community (EC), Canada and Japan has participated in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism more frequently than any other WTO member. Second, among developing country members some leading countries such as Korea, Brazil and India have relied actively upon the mechanism to claim and defend their rights and obligations under the WTO rules. Third, bilateral dispute settlements generally have been preferred to multilateral dispute settlements by the panel or Appellate Body. Fourth, observation of the Appellate Body proceedings well shows WTO members' strategy to use every process available to them. Fifth, the provisions of GATT 1994 have been most frequently invoked by the members. GATS and TRIPS Agreement disputes are mainly involved in developed countries, in particular the U.S. and the EC. Sixth, very high winning ratio in the panel and Appellate Body process indicates that complaining parties review the possibility to get favorable rulings even before referring to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and prepare for the case very thoroughly. Seventh, roughly speaking, disputes were settled within two or three years. Therefore, seeking bilateral dispute settlement can be more advantageous to a complaining party than referring to a panel or an arbitrator because of low costs and short time period in dispute settlement. Finally, the DSB approved retaliatory actions for winning complaining parties against the defending parties who had rejected implementation of its rulings and recommendations. In conclusion, it can be said that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has been operated very successfully for the first four and a half years. It is hoped that continued study on state-of-play of WTO dispute settlement mechanism will be contributory to improved national interest of Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2019

A franchise business is a business in which the owners, or "franchisors," sell the rights to their business logo, name, and model to third party retail outlets, owned by independent, third party operators, called "franchisees." There are a number of features in franchising or terms in franchise agreements that may lead to disputes between franchisors and franchisees. These disputes may arise because of underlying risks in the franchise relationship, franchise agreement, or conduct of the parties. In this case, ADR is an effective way to resolve disputes in a quicker and often less costly way than having to go to court. If an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, then arbitration becomes the next step to resolving the differences. Whereas mediation is non-binding and focused on facilitating the parties to find a resolution that is acceptable to both, arbitration is binding and may result in a decision that is not acceptable to one of the parties. These situations can be resolved through experienced arbitration as arbitration allows franchisees to settle matters promptly and outside of the public eye. In addition, franchise dispute arbitration is usually less costly than going to traditional court. Considering all of these, reaching an agreement will also have typical clauses that address the issue of dispute resolution. It is again a more efficient process than going through the legal process and courts and is often less costly. By going through arbitration, the parties agree to give up their rights to pursue the dispute in the courts. However, there is a problem that the arbitration prior to the agreement and under the terms would be contrary to the restriction of jurisdiction under the "ACT ON THE REGULATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

Cross-border consumer disputes are on the increase as cross-border trade between consumers and businesses continues to grow. Cross-border consumer disputes are difficult to solve, because there are different languages, laws and institutions between the parties. These consumer disputes can be solved more easily by Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in comparison with utilizing court processes. ODR is a branch of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. In this respect it is often seen as being the online equivalent of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). On 18 June 2013, the new legislation on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution has been published - the "Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Consumer ODR". The new legislation on ADR and ODR will allow consumers and traders to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost and simple way. The United Nations working group for online dispute resolution of cross-border electronic commerce transactions (UNCITRAL Working Group III) has been underway since 2010 to continue its work on procedural rules for ODR.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.11-52
• /
• 2010

Medical Dispute Arbitration Law had been debated on its legislation several times since Korean Medical Association's submission of the bill to the National Assembly in 1988, eventually in December, 2009, passed the National Assembly Standing Committee and was laid before the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and thus its legislation is now near at hand. During the long process, it has provided a hot issue with our society. And yet, Medical Dispute Arbitration Law has differed considerably in legislative content depending on the main body of proceeding the enactment, which subsequently was given the mixed comments of 'Act on Malpractice-related Damage Relief' or 'Medical Indemnity Act', and this legislative bill also cannot be free from this debate. It is desirable that medical disputes between doctors and patients be resolved through conciliation between the parties concerned. But, because reaching a compromise is difficult owing to deep emotional conflicts between the parties, difficulties in investigating a cause and requiring a high amount of settlement money, etc., it is inevitable to seek a resolution by third party intervention. By the way, such an arbitration by third party is based on the compromise of the interested parties and thus has a limitation of not being able to satisfy both parties completely. Therefore, the legislative bill made for arbitration of medical disputes between the parties will have to prepare an institutional system for the parties to easily understand and accept. Also, problems occurred in the legislative bill will have to be corrected through an in-depth discussion in order for the legislative bill to work as an effective system.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• 제44권2호
• /
• pp.147-160
• /
• 2022

SRFC (Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission) requested to the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) an advisory opinion relating to the IUU (Illegl, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing (Case No-21 of the ITLOS). Since, in the UNCLOS, there is no article authorizing the jurisdiction of the ITLOS full court's Advisory opinion, so various scholarly opinion wad divided. But ITLOS delivered its Advisory opinion confirming its jurisdictional competence over the Advisory proceedings with its legal opinion about the IUU issues. It opens new possibility of the alternative dispute settlement mechanism of the ITLOS through the advisory procedures. In reality, there has been a view that ICJ (International Court of Justice) could take the part of a kind of dispute settlement through its Advisory procedures. But the advisory procedures of the ITLOS, with no definite clause in UNCLOS about the advisory procedures, which provides more allowances for the function of advisory opinion as the alternative dispute settlement mechanism. ITLOS accepted the requests of the advisory opinion by the State parties through international organization or themselves directly. And the advisory opinion of the ITLOS aims the interpretation and application into the special issues-specially IUU fishing in Case No. 21 of the ITLOS-. Those factors could enable more enhanced role of the ITLOS as an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. But those possibility has contain risk of excessive and unlimited advisory role of the ITLOS. So it is important to focus on the restriction on the role of the State parties in the request of the advisory opinion to the ITLOS. In this regard it is meaningful that the ITLOS has suggested a kind of legal standing in the advisory procedures in that only coastal States could request the Advisory opinion about the IUU in their EEZ. Furthermore the discretionary power of the ITLOS in the Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal could curtail the abuse of the Advisory opinion initiated by the States parties of the UNCLOS. Under this framework, Advisory opinion could broaden more alternative option to the disputes between State parties of the UNCLOS in that after being delivered detailed interpretation of the UNCLOS about the specific issues, States parties could devote themselves to searching for flexible solution for the disputes between State parties. It could obtain legal explanation about the dispute under the Article 297 and Article 298 by detouring the jurisdiction limits through advisory procedures.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

Arbitration is the system of resolving disputes not by the adjudication of a national court but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators. To settle disputes by arbitration, it should be concluded that the arbitration agreement which is implied that the parties agree to submit to the arbitral award about all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationships. It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution. Because arbitration is a private proceeding with public consequences that some types of dispute are reserved for national courts, whose proceedings are generally in the public domain. It is this sense that they may not be the object of arbitration. After all, it could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제59권
• /
• pp.27-57
• /
• 2013

Traditionally construction has been an industry that favoured ADR over formal litigation due to the complexity of technical issues. However, over the past decade construction arbitration has come under increasing attack for its rising costs and growing delays, and expansion of arbitration processes to the point that those processes are approaching the more complex and formal processes followed to resolve disputes litigation. As a result, parties are looking for new methods of resolving their disputes in a more efficient and economical manner, such as ODR. A review of the history of ODR and the practical applications of ODR in use today lead to the conclusion that the concept of ODR for construction dispute resolution appears to be possible and realistic. The advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages, especially given the solutions suggested to overcome many of the disadvantages. While ODR may not be a realistic venue for large complex construction cases, it may be just the ideal venue for smaller and simple construction disputes. In conclusion, given the advantages that ODR arbitration does offer, the most realistic use of ODR in the short term would involve disputes consisting of a simple, one-dimensional dispute within which the parties can stipulate to the facts in the case. In such simple disputes ODR may be not only an appropriate vehicle within which the dispute can be resolved; it might be more easily accepted by the parties as the preferred platform for resolution. Hopefully, international institutions of arbitration will be successful in their development of a international standards and platform fir disputes that can be adapted for use in construction and will serve as the first step in developing ways to handle small construction claims, thereby allowing parties to resolve their disputes in a faster and more economical manner.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.47-64
• /
• 2011

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) released online arbitration rules which apply the resolution of disputes over electronic commerce transactions, as well as other economic and trade disputes in which the parties agree to do. The evidence submitted by the parties may be electronic evidence created, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or magnetic means. Electronic evidence with a reliable electronic signature shall carry the same effect and probative force as a document with a hand-written signature. Where a case is tried in a tribunal, the arbitration tribunal shall conduct an online trial hearing using internet video conference or other electronic or computer communication means. Unless the parties have another agreement, summary procedure shall apply to cases where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 100,000 but no more than RMB 1 million, or where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 1 million and a party submits a written application for summary procedure after obtaining the written consent of the other party. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, fast-track procedure shall apply to cases where the amount in dispute does not exceed RMB 100,000 or where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 100,000 and a party submits a written application for fast-track procedure after obtaining the written consent of the other party. Notable features of the Online Rules are as follows; first, there is not detailed consideration for online arbitration. Second, communications between the parties and the tribunal are allowed only through the Secretariat. Third, elaborate provisions regarding the electronic submission and transmission of documents is provided for. Forth, various factors must be considered by the tribunal in deciding the evidence's reliability. Fifth, reasonable endeavours is levied on CIETAC to keep data communications secure and encrypted. Sixth, the tribunal has the right to investigate and collect relevant evidence. And finally different procedures are provided for in consideration of the various types of E-commerce.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.55-88
• /
• 2002

Arbitration Act does not have express provision about voluntary agreement for the arbitration which third party, that is, the expert confirms factual bases of party's relationship of rights and duties, determines contents of the contract, and supplements or modifies contracts, and then the parties obey the expert's decision, but it is more probable that the parties can agree to this kind of arbitration agreement as long as they freely make a contract within the scope of law. However, there is a split of authority on the scope of such arbitration agreement. Some scholars argue that the parties can only agree on the extent of the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract. On the other hand, the other scholars argue that the parties can consent not only the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of contract, but also the expert's supplement or modification of contents of contract. Due to the expert's decision has effect on both parties and judges who give a judgment as a matter of law, this kind of arbitration agrement can contribute to prevent litigation. Also arbitration relieves court's burden, if such arbitration agreement was done on the important disputes. Considering that the arbitration agreement can function as a dispute resolution or a dispute prevention, it is desirable that legislators make the provision about this kind of arbitration and allow the application of arbitration Act in such arbitration agreement. Most scholars agree that the voluntary agreement for the arbitration as to third party's supplement or modification of contents of the contract can be included in the concept of a substantive law. However, it has not been concluded whether the voluntary agreement for the arbitration which follows the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract has the nature of substantive law or procedural law. The dispute about the nature of such arbitration agreement have some shortcomings in the effect of second kind of voluntary arbitration and the applicability of procedural principles. Therefore, it will be more adequate that the focus is given to the original function of this kind of arbitration agreement and the applicability of procedural principles (the neutrality of arbitrator, the assurance of hearing of the parties) rather than the dispute regarding the nature of this kind of arbitration agreement. Considering that more attention is given to the substitutive dispute resolution these days, the function of arbitration as prevention to the litigation and resolution before the litigation should be emphasized. To do this, a legal dispute about such arbitration agreement has to be resolved. More important issues in this kind of arbitration agreement are to retain of the neutral expert and to positively inform the benefits of this institution to the public.