• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.5
• /
• pp.19-42
• /
• 2017

Nowaday typically international commercial transaction, buyer and seller communicate with each other using standard forms. So called "the battle of forms" results from the exchanges of these forms. There are several problems that have to be solved in the battle of the forms. For example, Do the exchanges of the different terms form a contract? What are the contract terms? Which party's terms could apply? etc. Around the world, two basic types of rules are applied to solve the problem as to the battle of forms : last-shot rule and knock-out rule. In 2015, Hague Conference in Private International Law finally approved Hague Principles. The principles deal with the battle of the forms. Also in 2013, CISG Advisory Council adopted the "Black letter rules" to provide an effective way of resolving regarding the inclusion of standard terms under the CISG. This study would try to comprehensively review the battle of forms concerning Hague Principles and CISG. The aim of this study is to propose the most appropriate way to resolve the problem of the battle of forms both parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2019

An issue of human rights abuse in business emerged as a serious social problem recently not only in Korea, but also worldwide. However, the stipulations in 'UNGPs' and 'OECD Guidelines' do not provide a legally binding dispute settlement mechanism. Under these circumstances, it is very well timed that the Working Group on International Arbitration of Business and Human Rights recently published the Draft Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which will be launched in December 2019 as an effective and efficient alternative to mediation or court litigation. This paper examines the purpose, the structure, and the unique features of the Draft Hague Rules, among other provisions, including 1) Inequality of Arms between the Parties, 2) Appointing Authority, 3) Presiding Arbitrator's Qualification, 4) Evidentiary Procedures, 5) Remedy, and 6) Governing Law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.85-108
• /
• 2023

In international commercial arbitrations that arise from an international commercial contract, arbitral tribunals ruling on the merits of the arbitration apply the law governing the contract. The parties to contract are free to designate the law under the principle of parties autonomy. This paper examines this principle under the Korean Arbitration Act, and makes some legislative suggestions. For this purpose, this paper first discusses what is the scope of matters covered by the law governing the contract, what are the rules of conflict-of-laws for determining the law governing the contract, and what happens when the arbitral tribunal incorrectly applies the law governing the contract? Then, this paper further goes to examine issues such as the form of choice-of-law agreement, the explicit or implicit choice of law, the parties' ability to choose the rules of law including lex mercatoria, the change of choice-of-law agreement, the independence of choice-of-law clause.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.23-62
• /
• 2003

The Law amending the Conflict of Laws Act of the Republic of Korea ("Korea"), which had taken two years to prepare, was promulgated on April 7, 2001 and finally took effect as of July 1, 2001. Accordingly, the old earlier Conflict of Laws Act which was called "Seoboesabeop" in Korean ("Prior Act"Old Act) was replaced by the new Conflict of Laws Act called "Gukjesabeop" in Korean ("New Act"). In fact the Old Act Prior Act was promulgated in 1962, but it was regarded as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. However, since the Old Act because it was modeled after the chapter of the Private International Law of the Einfuehrungsgesetz zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB) of the Federal Republic of Germany ("German PIL") and the Japanese Private International Law ("Japanese PIL") which had been promulgated toward the end of the 19th century., the Old Act was viewed as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. As a result of the drastic change of the environment for international trade of which that has taken took place in parallel with the global information technology revolution on a global basis, the scope of issues to be addressed which should be resolved by the conflict of laws principles has been remarkably expanded, and various new issues of an entirely which are quite new in its type and nature have arisen been raised. In the field of conflict of laws in its narrow sense, a revolution or crisis of the traditional conflict of laws has been brought about by the advent in the United States rise of a the new methodology for of the conflict of laws, of the United States of America and in the process of overcoming the such crisis the conflict of laws of the European continent has undergone substantial changes such as the diversification of the connecting principles, the expansion of the principle of party autonomy and the consideration of the value of the substantive law to protect socio-economically weaker parties of. The Prior Act, which was based on However, with the mechanical connecting principles and contained various outdated the inappropriate provisions, the Old Act could not cope with the issues raised by the internationalization and globalization of the Korean society. Furthermore In addition, the Old Act Prior Act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory jurisdiction, whereas the expectation of the public was that the Conflict of Laws a Act should function as the "Basic Law of the International Legal Relationships"encompassing rules on international jurisdiction given the increase of international disputes. Furthermore the private international law has also attracted more attention from the Korean At the beginning of the new Millennium, thanks to the promulgation of the New Act, I believe that Korea has succeeded in achieving the modest goal of reflecting in the its codification substantial parts of the major developments of the private international law which the leading advanced continental European countries had achieved during the last century. The New Act has followed the approach of the traditional conflict of laws of the European continent. It is a product of the efforts to eliminate the then existing problems of the Prior Old Act and to adapt the Korean private international law regime to the standard of international conventions and national laws of advanced countries. Unlike the Prior Old Act which was heavily dependent upon the prior Japanese PIL and the prior German PIL, the New Act has been prepared by taking into full account the Rome Convention, the Swiss PIL, the new German PIL which took effect in 1986 and various conventions adopted by the Hague Conference. Therefore, the New Act has substantially reduced dependence upon the Japanese PIL and the German PIL, and has gained relatively greater universal validity. The fact that the New Act expressly declares that the determination of international jurisdiction is a matter of conflict of laws is a clear sign that it has departed from the German tradition which confines the conflict of laws principles to choice of laws rules, and moved toward a broader and more practical approach widely accepted in the area of conflict of laws. It is hoped, and I am personally confident, that the New Act will be able to achieve its intended objectives in the 21st century as the basic law for the ever-increasing legal relationships with a foreign element.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.273-302
• /
• 2015

The term "peaceful uses of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty appears in official government statements and multilateral outer space related treaties. However, the examination of the state practice leads to the conclusion that this term is still without an authoritative definition. As far as the meaning of 'peaceful use' in international law is concerned the same phrases in the UN Charter, the 1963 Treaty of Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere in Outer Space and Under Water, the 1956 Statute of IAEA, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1972 United Nations Conference of the Human Environment were analysed As far as the meaning of 'peaceful uses of outer space' is concerned the same phrases the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1979 Moon Treaty and the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques(ENMOD) were studied. According to Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space treaty, states shall not place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies repeats in Article III much of the Outer Space Treaty. This article prohibits the threat or use of force or any other hostile act on the moon and the use of the moon to commit such an act in relation to the earth or to space objects. This adds IN principle nothing to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty relating to military space activities. The 1977 ENMOD refers to peaceful purposes in the preamble and in Article III. As far as the UN Resolutions are concerned, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space, the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space(NPS) were studied. And as far the Soft Laws are concerned the 2008 Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT), the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Prolifiration(HCoC) and 2012 Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities(ICoC) were studied.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.109-133
• /
• 2007

The legal labyrinth through which we have just walked is one in which even a highly proficient lawyer could easily become lost. Warsaw Convention's original objective of uniformity of private international aviation liability law has been eroded as the world community ha attempted again to address perceived problems. Efforts to create simplicity and certainty of recovery actually may have created less of both. In any particular case, the issue of which international convention, intercarrier agreement or national law to apply will likely be inconsistent with other decisions. The law has evolved faster for some nations, and slower for others. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, strict liability is imposed on the air carrier for damage, loss, or destruction of cargo, luggage, or goods sustained either: (1) during carriage in air, which is comprised of the period during which cargo is 'in charge of the carrier (a) within an aerodrome, (b) on board the aircraft, or (c) in any place if the aircraft lands outside an aerodrome; or (2) as a result of delay. By 2007, 151 nations had ratified the original Warsaw Convention, 136 nations had ratified the Hague Protocol, 84 had ratified the Guadalajara Protocol, and 53 nations had ratified Montreal Protocol No.4, all of which have entered into force. In November 2003, the Montreal Convention of 1999 entered into force. Several airlines have embraced the Montreal Agreement or the IATA Intercarrier Agreements. Only seven nations had ratified the moribund Guatemala City Protocol. Meanwhile, the highly influential U.S. Second Circuit has rendered an opinion that no treaty on the subject was in force at all unless both affected nations had ratified the identical convention, leaving some cases to fall between the cracks into the arena of common law. Moreover, in the United States, a surface transportation movement prior or subsequent to the air movement may, depending upon the facts, be subject to Warsaw, or to common law. At present, International private air law regime can be described as a "situation of utter chaos" in which "even legal advisers and judges are confused." The net result of this barnacle-like layering of international and domestic rules, standards, agreements, and criteria in the elimination of legal simplicity and the substitution in its stead of complexity and commercial uncertainty, which manifestly can not inure to the efficient and economical flow of world trade. All this makes a strong case for universal ratification of the Montreal Convention, which will supersede the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Now that the Montreal Convention has entered into force, the insurance community may press the airlines to embrace it, which in turn may encourage the world's governments to ratify it. Under the Montreal Convention, the common law defence is available to the carrier even when it was not the sole cause of the loss or damage, again making way for the application of comparative fault principle. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though far a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes.