• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• 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
• /
• 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
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2017

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party's autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court's judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.53-89
• /
• 2006

At its thirty-second session(Vienna, 17 May-4 June 1999), the UNCITRAL decided that the priority items for the Working Group(Arbitration and Conciliation) should include enforceability of interim measures and the requirement of written (on for the arbitration agreement. The Working Group, at its forty-third session(Vienna, 3-7 October 2005), it had undertaken a detailed review of the text of the revised article 17 of UNCTTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and it had resumed discussions on a draft model legislative provision revising article 7, paragraph (2) of UNCITRAL Model Law. The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and issues of the draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders, and on the form of arbitration agreement which the Working Group discussed and adopted at its forth-fourth session(New York, 23-27 January 2006). The draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders are composed of the following provisions : Article 17-power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures; article 17 bis-conditions for granting interim measures; article 17 ter-applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders; article 17 quater-specific regime for preliminary orders; article 17 quinquies- modification, suspension, termination; article 17 sexies-provision of security; article 17 septies-disclosure; article 17 octies-costs and damages; article 17 novies recognition and enforcements; article 17 decies-grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement; article 17 undecies-court-ordered interim measures. There are the following issues in the draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders : form of issuance of an interim measures in article 17(2); conditions for granting interim measures in article 17 bis; purpose, function and legal regime of preliminary orders in article 17 ter; obligation of arbitral tribunal to give notice, and non-enforceability of preliminary orders in article 17 quater; burden of proof, interplay between article 17 decies and article 34, and decision on the recognition and enforcement of the interim measures in article 17 decies; placement of article 17 undecies; amendment of scope exception of application in article 1(2). The draft legislative provisions on the form of arbitration agreement are composed of the following provisions : article 7(1) definition of arbitration agreement; article 7(2) arbitration agreement in writing; article 7(3) arbitration agreement if its terms(content) are (is) recorded in any form; article 7(4) arbitration agreement by an electronic communication; article 7(5) arbitration agreement in an exchange of statements of claim and defence; article 7(6) reference to any document containing an arbitration clause. There are the following issues in the draft legislative provisions on the form of arbitration agreement : arbitration agreement in writing in article 7(2); terms or contents of arbitration agreement in article 7(3); arbitration agreement by electronic communication in article 7(4); existence of arbitration agreement in article 7(5); reference to any document containing an arbitration clause in article 7(6); the alternative proposal on article 7; amendment to article 35(2).