• 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
• /
• 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
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.71-100
• /
• 2007

To promote the way of resolving the increasing disputes regarding international intellectual property by arbitration, we should overcome uncertainty thwarting the dispute resolution; i.e., whether a dispute regarding intellectual property would be an arbitrable subject, whether the arbitration agreement would be valid and enforceable, and whether the arbitral award could be recognized and enforced in a foreign country. This article is intended to seek how to promote and facilitate the resolution of international disputes regarding intellectual property by arbitration. This article in Chapter II will examine the characteristics of the IP disputes first. Chapter III of this article will study arbitrability of IP disputes. Then, Chapter IV will discuss the requirements, validity, and effectiveness of arbitration agreement of international IP disputes. The author will discuss the procedure of arbitration of the international IP disputes in Chapter V, and finally the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards thereon in Chapter VI. Due to the so called 'territoriality principle' in intellectual property, the international disputes thereof confront numerous procedural setback, e.g., jurisdiction, conflict of laws, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or awards. To overcome such setbacks, I propose resolution of international IP disputes by one-step arbitration procedure through widely recognizing the arbitrability of IP disputes, and utilizing unnational nature of arbitration. In addition, I propose to set up the principles as to arbitration of the international IP disputes as the American Law Institute has formulated the principles for International Intellectual Property Litigations. By setting up these principles, I am certain it will be helpful to just and prompt resolution of international IP disputes which occur more frequently these days.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2022

This paper studies legal regulation of the public policy exception in the Russian Federation and domestic judicial practice on the issue. It reviews current legislation and analyzes a number of recent court cases where an arbitral award rendered by a foreign arbitration body was refused recognition and enforcement based on public policy violation. By doing so, it contributes to the knowledge on the concept of public policy in the Russian legal system and how public policy can affect the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on its territory. The review of court cases demonstrates different aspects of how the public policy exception can be applied by Russian arbitrazh courts. Such decisions can provide a clearer picture of the kinds of situation that can lead to invoking the public policy clause by the court. Also, it is of practical value as persons preparing to file a claim or to be a defendant in a Russian court can be required to present existing court decisions in support of their claim or defence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권3호
• /
• pp.67-94
• /
• 2020

This paper examines the current enforcement regime of Korea and provides an overview of the same with focus on the changes before and after the 2016 revision of the Korean Arbitration Act. It briefly studies the pro-arbitration bias of the New York Convention, as well as the Korean judiciary's stance on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Some of the substantial issues discussed in the paper include the major procedural changes brought about by the 2016 amendment with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards. The paper also discusses the rare instances where the Korean judiciary refused to recognize or enforce an arbitral award, and the reasoning behind the refusal. The paper discusses and analyzes four court judgments that reflect the Korean judiciary's position on the enforcement of foreign and domestic arbitral awards in Korea. It focuses on the NDS v. KT Skylife case, where the court of first instance refused the enforcement on grounds that the relief granted by the arbitral tribunal was not specific enough for enforcement. Ultimately, the appellate court, although agreeing on the specificity requirement, reversed the ruling and granted an enforcement judgment on grounds that the application for enforcement had the legal interest to request an enforcement judgment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.27-54
• /
• 2005

In the era of globalization firms must operate all useable resources into marketing activities to survive on the unlimited competition. However, firms face many kinds of disputes with counterparts because of aggressive marketing activities. There are two ways of solving these disputes : litigation and arbitration. As compared to litigation, arbitration is more popular because of such merits as the enforcement of arbitral award in foreign countries, the single trial system, the settlement by specialists, and the confidential proceedings. This paper examines trade firms' perception on the arbitration system and the effects of the advantages of arbitration and quality of arbitrators on the outcome of arbitration. The results show that the advantages of arbitration and quality of arbitrators influenced positively on the outcome of arbitration, but influenced negatively on the closed-door of arbitration procedures and a fair procedure of arbitrator. Though this paper has several limitations, this paper may contribute to figure out the relationship between arbitration merits and quality of arbitrator and outcomes as a first empirical paper and to suggest future research method and direction.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.377-413
• /
• 2004

North Korea and South Korea agreed to refer their investment disputes to arbitration by adopting' Agreed Minutes on Procedures of Settlement of Commercial Disputes' on 16th December 2000. According to the Agreed Minutes, the two Koreas were to establish an arbitration commission within 6 months after the Agreed Minutes had been signed. In 2002, North Korea enacted laws to draw interest of foreign tourists to Mountain Kumgang and to boost investment into the region of Kaesung as it provided in those laws that commercial disputes should be settled by arbitration or judicial procedures. In October 2003, the two Koreas succeeded in adopting another Agreed Minutes as to the establishment and functioning of North-South Arbitration Commission. The fact that the two Koreas have agreed to establish an arbitration commission is meaningful since they are leading their lives quite differently in political, social, and economic sense for more than a half century. Although there still remain doubts as to the North Korean policy on nuclear matters, an arbitration commission could be a cornerstone for the set-up of the dispute settlement system between the two Koreas and a great help for investors from South Korea to pursue their possible legal claims as North Korea is eager to invite South Korean businessmen and other foreign investors to invest in its special economic areas. According to the Agreed Minutes of 2003, the two Koreas are going to adopt procedural rules for the arbitration commission. It will be a great challenge for them to agree on specific issues as to the operation of the arbitration commission. They have to set up a rester of arbitrators respectively and may have to enact or revise their own arbitration laws and rules reflecting the Agreed Minutes of 2000 and 2003. It is quite welcome that the two Koreas have agreed to set up an arbitration commission rather than resort to political or diplomatic means to settle their disputes. The success of the arbitration system between the two Koreas will make sure the safety of investment environment in the northen part of the Korean Peninsula and will bring the peace to the Korean peninsula earlier than expected.