• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.141-164
• /
• 2013

The current Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) ${\S}37(2)$ requires that a formal copy of an arbitral award or a duly certified copy thereof and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof be produced for the recognition and enforcement of a arbitral award. But as the KAA provides that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award to which the New York Convention applies shall be granted in accordance with the Convention, the duly authenticated original award should be produced instead of a formal copy in that case. The provision on the documents to produce for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is set to establish a reasonable and transparent standard and to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of awards by prohibiting parochial refusal of the recognition and enforcement on the grounds of formalities. Therefore it is necessary to simplify those documents according to the internationally acknowledged standard. It would be desirable to amend KAA ${\S}37(2)$ to require only "the original arbitral award or a copy thereof" without authentication or certification and a translation into Korean without any condition, adopting the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2020

The "arbitration" system resolves disputes through judgments on rights relations or claims between disputed parties by judging by private trial, but it does not have organizational and material bases to execute the contents of these judgments. Therefore, unless the parties succeed in voluntarily surrendering to the results of the arbitration award, the implementation of the award will be accomplished by the enforcement of the assistance of the National Court. However, unlike the court's ruling, the arbitration tribunal does not generate enforcement power from the judgment itself, and it must be filed with the court for execution. In this regard, Germany provides for arbitration proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act Volume 10. In particular, Article 1060 governs the approval and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the procedure for declaring the feasibility of domestic arbitration proceedings and the execution of forced execution are commenced. Regarding the enforceable declaration of a domestic arbitral award, it differs from the simpler process requirements compared to the procedure in a foreign arbitral award, and usually has the same effect as a final judgment between the parties without a separate approval procedure. However, the arbitration award does not constitute an enforceable power that can be implemented, but is enforced through the national court's declaration procedure. However, if there is a ground for cancellation as provided for in Article 1059 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Act, the arbitral award is canceled and the application for enforcement is dismissed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2019

As international trades between Korea and China increase, the number of civil disputes also increases. The civil dispute settlement system and the court system in China are distinctive from those of Korea. China has its own court systems which are characterized by the Chinese Communist System. Due to the influence of the decentralized local autonomy tradition, the case laws of each Province in China are not unified throughout the China. This is partly because only two instances are provided in China, and the parties cannot appeal to the Supreme People's Court of China unless there is a special reason. In Korea, three instances are provided and parties can appeal to the Supreme Court if a party so chooses. In addition, there are many differences in the judicial environment of China compared to Korea. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a Korean party and a Chinese party, arbitration is recommended rather than court litigation. This article examines the points to be considered for interim measures in China during arbitration. Where the seat of arbitration is Korea, interim measures cannot be taken by the order of the Chinese court in the middle of or before arbitration procedures. On the other hand, it is possible to take interim measures through the Chinese court in the middle of or before the arbitration procedure in China or Hong Kong. It also reviews the points to be noted in case of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China where permission from the upper Court is required to revoke or to deny the recognition or enforcement of a foreign-related or foreign arbitration award.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.45-65
• /
• 2009

China and Taiwan had opened complete Three Linkages era December 2008, in the 59 years. The improvement of two countries' relationship is expecting to spur two countries more on the economy exchange. However the increasement of investment and trade between two countries will increase disputes to ratio. In order to settle the disputes related to economy between two countries, the most favorite way is to use arbitral system which involve less public power. After China and Taiwan recognized this point, they announced provisions which allow to solve controversies through the arbitration between parties of two countries since 1980, and prepared legal basis for dispute settlement between two countries. However, because China and Taiwan do not authorize each party as a country, the execution application made by each party based on New York Convention related to foreign arbitral awards cannot be approved. Because of these kind of reasons China and Taiwan should agree in order to guarantee mutual execution of arbitral awards which is an ultimate purpose of arbitration. However because of the political situation of two countries there are provisions related to execution for arbitral awards decided by each party. In this paper, I separated the provision related to mutual execution for arbitral awards of each party of China and Taiwan, examined exposed problems, and suggested ways to improve. It can support some of assistance and implication to establish basis of arbitral system between South Korea and North Korea and to suggest direction to derive through this kind of study.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.87-122
• /
• 1998

This study reports on the Arbitration system in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration commission (CIETAC) and the International Arbitration problems of Korea and China. The Chines laws including Arbitration laws are influenced by the civil Code system Particulary the German system. China is contracting state of the U N Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958 New York Convention), which became effective in the China April 22, 1987. International Commercial Arbitration is popular in China. CIETAC is the sole International Commercial Arbitration body in China. CIETAC has two sub-commissions, on is shen zhem S E Z and the other in shanghai. The CIETAC rules, are similar to the rules in effect in Countries using a civil Code system. Both an agreement to submit an existing dispute to Arbitration and an Arbitration clause in a contract relating to future disputes are recognizeal as valiad Arbitration agreements. CIETAC has the power to make a decision on disputes concering the validity of the Arbitration agreements, or jurisdiction over a specicific case.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제16권5호
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2014

상사중재는 문제를 해결하고 사업 파트너간 분쟁에 대한 해결책을 찾는 신속하고 효과적인 방법이다. 상사중재 발전을 위해 이론 뿐 만 아니라 실무차원에서 중재연구의 접근이 필요하다. 본 논문은 파키스탄 국내 중재법과 파키스탄에서 적용되는 국제상사중재제도에 대한 상황과 접근방법 등을 제시하였다. 파키스탄에서 새롭게 정비된 2009년 중재법은 국내중재, 국제상사중재, 외국 중재판정의 집행뿐 만 아니라 국제투자분쟁의 해결에 관한 법률을 통합하는 것을 목표로 한다. 더 나아가 2011년에 파키스탄 투자자의 신뢰를 회복하기 위해 외국인 투자자를 보호할 수 있는 법을 도입하기도 하였다. 본 논문은 파키스탄의 중재법의 과거부터 현재까지 진전된 관계를 설명하고 새로운 법령에 의해 적용된 변경사항을 설명하고 중재계약 및 판정을 다루는 파키스탄 중재 법률, 규칙 및 절차를 실무차원에서 포괄적으로 제시하였다. 잠재시장인 파키스탄관련 통상정보가 부재한 상황에서 한국무역학자들에게 파키스탄 상사중재제도에 관한 실무적 이해를 돕기 위하여 작성되었다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2006

Arbitration, which involves a final determination of disputes, has elements of the judicial process. Although an alternative to formal court litigation, it does not replace it in all aspect, but rather coexists with court procedure as an adjunct and part of administering justice. As the international trade has the basic problems of business managed between the parties of other countries having different laws, customs, cultures, currencies and religions. It has been known that these defects caused the commercial disputes and suspended economic fluence in world economic development through the foreign business. The United Nations launched 'the United Nations Convention on the Enforcement and Recognition of the Foreign Arbitral Awards' in 1958 to give effect to the international commercial arbitration. However, the convention has the limitation in excluding the legal obstacles originated from domestic arbitration systems of every states. As the result, the UN succeeded in making world wide arbitration law named 'The UN Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration' in 1983 and recommended all member countries to accept it to revise their domestic arbitration laws thereafter. Korea revised national arbitration law accepting 100% of the model law in 2000. In this respect korea became to have the international dispute settlement system. Korea will be able to settle more business disputes arisen from the international trade and enjoy the world credibility through the new arbitration system.