• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.77-100
• /
• 2019

Third-party funding in international and domestic disputes is a fast-growing trend and it is increasingly used by large, solvent companies that simply wish to share risk in their finance. On January 10, 2017, the Civil Law Amendment Bill was passed in Singapore and on June 2017 an "Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) Bill" in Hong-Kong had a third-party funding to finance the international arbitration and other dispute resolutions expressly approved. This arbitral tribunal's expanding discretion over critical interim measure of security cost was in issue. In Essar v. Norscot (2016), the arbitrator found that the additional third-party funding costs were recoverable as "other costs of the parties." In here, the decision showed the issue of a tribunal's power over cost measures could spread out to be reviewed and broadened through the legislative process. A recent investor-state arbitration case of ICSID, RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, covered the express awarding of security for costs where a claimant was funded by a third-party funder. It seems inevitable that the volume of third-party funding industry will grow more as time goes on. The next step would be to formulate guidelines on how to determine criteria against which an application for security for costs is measured.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.45-66
• /
• 2018

Two years ago, an emergency arbitrator procedure in accordance with the international arbitration rule has been finally adopted in Korea?a decade after its introduction. Arbitral institutions provide interim measures in the course of tribunal proceedings to avoid litigation in open court that is often expensive and time-consuming. An emergency arbitrator procedure offers an urgent relief prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, thus enhancing the speed and effectiveness of the arbitration procedure even further. Although most of the arbitral institutions interpret that the emergency arbitration rulings are binding on the parties, enforcing the emergency arbitration provisions have some difficulties in practice, and it is not clear whether or not arbitral interim measures will be enforceable under the newly adopted provisions in Korea. In this study, experiences in other countries are explored in seeking for the possible problems and solutions of enforcing the emergency arbitration rulings. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong insert terms such as "finality," "enforceable in the same manner as an order or direction of the Court," "same effect as an arbitral tribunal or interim measures" in their emergency arbitrator legislation to enhance enforcement. Moreover, "urgency inherent" are considered.

• 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
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2018

This paper aims to explore ways to develop the arbitration industry in Korea. The prospects for the promotion of the arbitration industry in Korea are never dim. International arbitration competitiveness is somewhat lower than its competitors at present, but the international economic base to support it is solid, and the domestic arbitration environment seems to be sufficient to support the development possibility of arbitration. Since geographical and economic factors have already been defined, Korea must at least improve the arbitration act with passion and vision for the best one. The arbitration act that is the most accessible to arbitration consumers is the best arbitration act. The important thing is to have an arbitration act that makes people want to use more than litigation or other dispute resolution procedures. There is no hope of remaining as a "second mover" in the field of arbitration law. One should have a will and ambition to become a "first mover" even if it is risky. Considering the situation of the current arbitration law, it is necessary to start an arbitration appeal system in order to become a consumer-friendly arbitration law, and it is necessary to examine ways of integrating the grant of execution clause and enforcement application procedures. The abolition of the condition of Article 35 of the Arbitration Act, which rules the validity of the arbitration award, will help promote international arbitration. Exclusion agreements of setting aside against arbitration awards must also be fully recognized. It is also important to publish a widely cited international arbitration journal. In order to respond to the fourth industrial revolution era, it is necessary to support the establishment of a dispute resolution system that utilizes IT technology. In order to actively engage the arbitrators in the market, it is necessary to abolish the regulations that exist in the Attorneys-at-Law Act. There is also a need to allocate more budget to educate arbitration consumers and to establish arbitration training centers to strengthen domestic arbitration education. It is also necessary to evaluate and verify the Arbitration Promotion Act so that it can achieve results. In the international arbitration market, competition is fierce and competitors are already taking the initiative, so in order not to miss the timing, Korea needs to activate international arbitration first. In order to activate international arbitration, the arbitration body needs to be managed with the same mobility and strategy as the agency in the marketplace. In Korea, unlike in Singapore and Hong Kong, it is necessary to recognize that the size of the domestic arbitration market is very likely to increase sharply due to the economic size of the country and the large market potential it can bring from litigation. In order to promote the arbitration industry, what is most important is to make arbitration activities in accordance with the principles of the market and to establish an institutional basis to enable competition. It is urgently required to change the perception of the relevant government departments and arbitration officials.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.185-226
• /
• 2015

As in some developing countries and more recently some developed countries worldwide and in the Asian region, Australia has faced significant internal opposition and public debate especially over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As outlined in Part II(1), concerns have re-emerged and escalated since the first-ever claim was brought against Australia regarding its tobacco plain packaging legislation, in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia under an old BIT with Hong Kong. However, Australia signed bilateral FTAs with Korea in 2014 and with China in 2015, including ISDS protections, prompting several sets of parliamentary inquiries (Part II(2)). Australia's close trading partner, New Zealand, had already concluded an FTA with China in 2008 that included more expansive ISDS-backed investor protections. In 2015, the New Zealand Parliament has been debating ratification of its own FTA with Korea, with ISDS also now attracting growing scrutiny, as elaborated in Part III below. In both bilateral FTA negotiations, the present Korean government seems to have reverted to a strong preference for concluding investment agreements with extensive ISDS protections, despite public and parliamentary debate around 2011 in the context of ratifying its FTA with the United States. As mentioned briefly in the concluding Part IV, Korea's stance has significant implications for the future trajectory of treaty-based ISDS - and indeed international arbitration more generally - in the Asia-Pacific region, and perhaps even globally.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.113-133
• /
• 2015

This article reviews some recent decisions of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the recognition and enforcement of several South Korean arbitral awards. It explains the implementation of the New York Convention in the PRC and in particular the so-called Report System under the current Mainland Chinese law and judicial practice. It identifies some deficiencies in the People's Courts' approaches to the application and interpretation of the New York Convention and argues that the Mainland Chinese courts should adopt the pro-enforcement principle in the determination of the relevant issues under the New York Convention. It proposes further enhancement of the Report System and that the current categorization of 'domestic, foreign-related and foreign' in the context of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards needs to be further reviewed and clarified by the SPC. Last but not the least, it recommends some steps that South Korean parties should take to enhance the enforceability of South Korean Arbitral Awards in Mainland China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2020

The Scope of Application of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and Foreign Investment Act This article examines whether the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and the Foreign Investment Act of North Korea apply to South Korean parties or companies. This article analyzes laws and agreements related to economic cooperation between South Korea and North Korea. Furthermore, this article compares and evaluates laws related to foreign investment and enacted in North Korea. Now, North Korea's door is closed due to economic sanctions against it, but it will be opened soon. Thus, this article prepares for the future opening of North Korea's markets. Is there a rule of laws in North Korea or just a ruler? Are there laws in North Korea? North Korea has enacted a number of legislation to attract foreign investors, referring to those Chinese laws. For example, North Korea enacted the Foreigner Investment Act, the Foreigner Company Act, the Foreign Investment Bank Act, the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, the Foreign Economic Contract Act, the International Trade Act, and the Free Economy and Trade Zone Act, among others. Article 2 (2) of the Foreign Investment Law of North Korea states, "Foreign investors are corporations and individuals from other countries investing in our country." It is interpreted that South Korea is not included in the "other countries" of this definition. According to many mutual agreements signed by South Korea and North Korea, the relationship between the two Koreas is a special relation inside the Korean ethnic group. An arbitration between a South Korean party and a North Korean party has the characteristics of both domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. If the South Korea and North Korea Commercial Arbitration Commission or the Kaesong Industrial Complex Arbitration Commission is not established, the possibility of arbitration by the Chosun International Trade Arbitration Commission, established under North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, should be examined. There have been no cases where the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act is applied to disputes between parties of South Korea and North Korea. It might be possible to apply the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act by recognizing the "foreign factor" of a dispute between the South Korean party and North Korean party. It is necessary to raise legislative clarifications by revising the North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act as to whether Korean parties or companies are included in the scope of this Act's application. Even if it is interpreted that South Korean parties or companies are not included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, disputes between South Korean companies and North Korean companies can be resolved by foreign arbitration institutes such as CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong, or SIAC in Singapore. Such arbitration awards could be enforced in North Korea pursuant to Article 64 of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. This is because the arbitration awards of foreign arbitration institutes are included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. The matter is how to enforce the North Korean laws when a North Korean party or North Korean government does not abide by the laws or their contracts. It is essential for North Korea to join the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.229-243
• /
• 2009

The content industries environment has been undergoing significant changes due to rapid technological innovation and content market expansion. Interest in the industry is growing fast both in Asia and Europe. However, in Japan content industries are showing almost zero growth with no increase in overseas expansion. Until now, Japanese content industries have been able to grow based on domestic demands. Many different factors contributed to today's zero growth in Japanese content industries. Two main reasons are: 1) Their lack of interest in overseas expansion and 2) Insufficient investment in domestic human resources development. Considerable amounts of Japanese contents including films, music, games, and animations have been distributed in many Asian countries and today piracy problems in the region are at a serious level. According to 2004 records pirated editions accounted for 85%, 16%, 19%, and 36% in China, Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan respectively. Pirated editions bring economic losses to Japanese copyright profits. Making it worse, they weaken the motivation to create content and make it hard to activate cultural exchanges. Losses from copyright violations in Japanese content industries are expected to keep increasing in the future. In order to make Japan competitive and grow it is crucial to take proper measures to protect copyright infringements. This study considers the current situation of the Japanese content market, infringement issues in content which is causing many problems in Asian countries, including China, and facts about losses caused by this problem.