• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.125-151
• /
• 2018

Rapid industrial growth based on massive fossil fuel energy consumption has caused serious damages on natural environment and every aspects of human life. As demands for clean and pleasant living circumstance increases, conflicts and disputes around environmental problems have also been widespread. Given the 'environmental rights' is a relatively new legal concept, however, resolving environmental disputes through the traditional legal principles and litigation procedures could be restrictive and, in some sense. inefficient as well as expensive. With efforts to develop new legal principles on environmental disputes, the environmental dispute adjustment system has been introduced as an alternative dispute resolution to the traditional legal dispute procedures. The Korean Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission introduced as the environmental dispute adjustment system has been well established for the past twenty-seven years, given the steadily increasing numbers of applications to the Commission over environmental disputes. However, as most cases are still small in money terms and mainly subject to adjudication, the effectiveness and practical contribution of the Commission in the resolution of environmental disputes have in fact been limited. For the enhancement of the status and roles of the Commission as the prior instrument of the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) in environmental disputes, several suggestions could be considered as follows: First, mediation needs to be more activated than adjudication in order to meet the primary purpose of ADR that resolves environmental disputes according to free will of concerned parties. Second, the scope of mediation could be expanded to the areas including potential environmental damages. Third, the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commissions at both central and local levels need to be evenly distributed. Fourth, the mechanism and procedures of environmental dispute resolution should be standardized. Fifth, the status of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission could be elevated in rank by shifting its current affiliation from the Ministry of Environment to the Office of Prime Minister. Sixth, the organizational structure and human resources of the Commission need to be reinforced. Seventh, the current situation that tends to give priority to litigation procedures when an environment dispute is simultaneously pending in litigation and mediation should be eased and properly adjusted. Eighth, the adoption of mandatory mediation in advance to litigation needs to be discussed. Ninth, the legal authority of the Commission's decisions should be further guaranteed. If above suggestions are thoroughly reviewed and properly adopted, the roles, authority and power of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission would be increased in the era when environmental conflicts get widespread, requiring an effective alternative environmental dispute resolution mechanism.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The legal integration in the European Union that seeks a unified system in consumer disputes and the German Consumer Dispute Mediation Act based on this pursues the procedural fairness of consumer disputes and the equality of results. The role and legal status of the dispute mediator, who plays a very important role in this process, and the stable operation of the dispute resolution system and the guarantee of reasonable results through the guarantee of fairness and independence are very important values. In particular, the dispute mediator under the Act is conceptually different from the existing mediator or mediator, and through this distinction, the duties and contents of the dispute mediator are also distinguished. For this reason, the qualifications of dispute mediators that affect the outcome of dispute mediation are strictly stipulated. There have been some criticisms of this strictness, and such strictness is also seen as an excessive limitation. However, these standards can be understood as one of the efforts to make the dispute mediation procedure more systematic and to operate objectively in accordance with laws and procedures. In addition, in relation to the issue of independence and impartiality of the dispute mediator, the status of the dispute mediator is guaranteed in various aspects. In economic terms, it is not influenced by external factors, and furthermore, in order to guarantee job stability, the results of job security and dispute resolution are not linked. By examining the appropriate level of discipline for these dispute mediators, we expect the developmental growth of the consumer dispute resolution system under our Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

First, the purpose of this research is to review the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations in Korea to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the near future. Second, this research tries to look for alternative solutions to dispute resolutions according to these regulations. Third, this research pursues to enhance the effectiveness of business deals by providing efficient and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for e-commerce business. Furthermore, this study evaluates the definition of global e-commerce by comparing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Through analyzing the domestic ODR system and ADR system, this research could boost the employment of settlements in small-sized disputes through easy and convenient consumer access to both ODR and ADR procedures. The enhancement of the competitiveness of Korean companies in the global market is estimated to take place as a result. This research is estimated to provide benefits to our businesses both domestically and internationally by using ODR regulations and ADR methods. Moreover, this research is anticipated to verify usefulness in terms of consumer protection by advancing consumers' access to dispute solution authorities locally and abroad.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2012

Although political uncertainty exists between China and Taiwan, the two countries have been expanding their economic exchange since the 1980s. That economic exchange is not limited to trade, and its investment segment is constantly expanding. The investment was one-sided by Taiwan in the past, but since a change in policy by the Taiwan government in 2009, Chinese capital is able to flow into Taiwan for direct investment. These kinds of policy changes related to investment between the two countries require follow-up actions such as profit protection for investors, elimination of investment limitations, simplification of investment procedures, and establishment of an investment dispute resolution system. The main topic of this study is the resolution mechanism for investment disputes between China and Taiwan. At present, an individual investment dispute between two countries is settled according to each country's own regulations for dispute resolution. However, these two countries have not prepared dispute resolution regulations related to cases of investment disputes between Chinese or Taiwanese investors and the Chinese or Taiwanese government, or between the Chinese government and the Taiwanese government. Moreover, they do not have any agreements related to investment disputes. Therefore, in this paper, I enumerate the regulations related to investment dispute resolution between China and Taiwan, and then I point out the problems and suggest solutions for improvement. Also, through this study, I would like to contribute to establishing and implementing an investment dispute resolution mechanism between South Korea and North Korea.

• 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.12 no.1
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 2002

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a system to settle disputes without having to pursue a judgment through the courts; it provides an alternative to conventional judicial proceedings. As such, ADR is available to resolve a wide range of disputes, ranging from minor disagreements between neighbors to contracts involving millions of dollars. One can say there has been “efficient resolution of a dispute” only when it has been settled rapidly and finally to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, inexpensively and in a transparent manner. In this respect, ADR may well be regarded as the most efficient method to resolve disputes. In order to establish and disseminate ADR as a practical dispute-settlement procedure, first, governmental financial support is necessary, rather than having to depend upon fees collected from the disputing parties. At the same time, various inducement policies also are required. The most important factor is to make people aware of the fact that ADR is a low-cost, speedy system and more practical compared with other procedures. Second, cooperation from legal circles, lawyers in particular, is absolutely necessary. If disputes become serious, the general public normally seeks out lawyers for advice. Third, disputing parties have to be convinced of the benefits of ADR, secure in the knowledge that ADR will provide them not only with economic benefit but also a satisfactory result. Diverse ADR procedures should be developed and implemented to facilitate participation in a comfortable atmosphere with a mutually friendly relationship. The most important factor in achieving the wider use of ADR, which is attracting more attention of late, is the expectation that it will bring a satisfactory resolution to the related parties in dispute. The trend of seeking a new dispute-settlement method also reflects the changing sense of values in society today. Therefore, one specific method is not suitable for all kinds of disputes. A proper system should offer different approaches according to the pattern and type of dispute and the parties concerned. In selecting a dispute-resolution system, several factors have to be considered - the relationship between the parties, their financial situations, the necessity of maintaining confidentiality, urgency for settlement, etc. In the light of all these, it is desirable for the disputing parties to select the most appropriate of the available systems, not blindly turning to the courts, if and when a dispute arises.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.135-157
• /
• 2022

Religion has a very close relationship with our everyday lives. In particular, religion maintains an absolute and ultimate value system and is deeply associated with all sectors of society such as politics, economy, thought, arts, culture, and science. The original meaning of religion in Buddhism means the teachings that become fundamentals. There are numerous religions around the world, and each religion has its own object of faith, different system, and unique rites and lifestyles. Therefore, evaluating or denouncing other regions based on the doctrines or conventions of a specific religion can lead to conflicts and disputes. The Buddhist Vinaya Pitaka related to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a method regarding the operation of a community. Vinaya Pitaka contains Buddha's teachings about individual and organizational ethics and on community life and activities. It is the Buddhist dispute resolution (BDR) of the Vinayata Pitaka that contains knowledge on howto remedy disputes among the four types of disputes that can occur. Vinaya Pitaka contains the principles and systems of BDR, and it is sufficient background for succeeding in the development of harmony today. The messages of laws, ethics, and Buddhist teachings are clear in these characteristics. The systems, progress, and procedures for various rites, events, and disputes as well as for everyday life, etc. display a rational operating system through karma. In particular, when disputes occur, the cause of the dispute is resolved as much as possible through transparent fairness and being unanimous using the seven remedies for disputes. Buddhist priests pursue private autonomy of ADR through karma, repentance, acceptance, etc. to maintain and continue the integrated functions of Buddhist priest harmony.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2021

General lawsuits can be chosen as a method of resolving patent disputes. However, a significant amount of time and money is wasted on litigation until the dispute is resolved. The Intellectual Property Framework Act in Korea requires the government to simplify litigation procedures and improve litigation systems to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and fairly. As a result, accurate and timely resolution of patent disputes is given importance by the Korean government. Interest in arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution is growing. Although dispute resolution through arbitration is effective, the issue of resolving patent disputes through arbitration can lead to the arbitrability of patent disputes. It is therefore necessary to examine arbitrability of patent contracts and validity disputes. Korea has made efforts to reflect the model arbitration law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for quick judicial resolution of patent disputes. Korea has also strengthened related systems for alternative resolutions. However, improving the arbitration system will necessitate a thorough examination of the systems and practices of the United States which is the country in the forefront of intellectual property. This paper examines the arbitrability of Korea's patent dispute and makes recommendations for more efficient dispute resolution system changes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.145-179
• /
• 2001

The Federal Maritime Commission is issuing new regulations implementing the Administrative dispute Resolution Act. The new regulations expand the Commission's Alternative dispute resolution(“ADR”) services, addressing guidelines and procedures for arbitration and providing for mediation and other ADR services. This rule replaces current subpart U-(Conciliation Service), with a new subpart U-(Alternative Dispute Resolution), that contains a new Commission ADR policy and provisions for various means of ADR. The rule also revises certain other regulations to conform to the Commission's new ADR policy. So, this paper object was to study on the FMC's ADR in U.S. with the emphasis on the final rule analysis.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2013

The entertainment industry has developed along with current Korean wave fever, and so entertainment-related disputes are increasing rapidly. Litigation is a poor fit for entertainment disputes because of characteristics such as temporal sensitivity. Thus, in the US, the entertainment industry resolves these disputes through ADR mechanisms like arbitration, but cases of settling such disputes through arbitrations are very rare in Korea. This study examined the characteristics and types of entertainment disputes and considered the compatibility of arbitration as a method for settling disputes, and then suggested tasks for revitalizing arbitration systems as entertainment dispute resolution procedures. Arbitrations have many merits, such as the rapid pace of procedures, confidentiality, satisfying the long-term desires of business relationships, the low cost of settling disputes, judgments rendered by experts, etc.; thus, it is a very suitable mechanism to settle entertainment-related disputes. The study proposes necessary steps for revitalizing arbitration systems for entertainment disputes. First, awareness of entertainment industry workers about the arbitration system should be raised. Second, special educational programs for members the of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board related to entertainment should be set up and operated together with encouraging positive attitudes toward actions like establishing a dedicated arbitration unit on entertainment disputes. Third, neutral, professional arbitrators should be secured and aggressive disclosures made. Fourth, a professional ADR organization such as an "Entertainment Arbitration Committee" should be established.