• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.81-106
• /
• 2006

The Terms of Reference are one of the most distictive features of ICC Arbitration. No document of this type is required to be drawn up under the rules of any of the other major international arbitration institutions. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in Article 18 of ICC Rules of Arbitration, which results in the wide recognition of the Terms of Reference. As the volume of our international commercial transaction ranks almost ten in the world, the frequency using ICC Arbitration is expected to increase continuously. The Terms of Reference provide the parties and the arbitrators with an opportunity to identify and agree on procedural and other matters, such as the applicable law, the language of the arbitration and the timetable for the arbitration. They also afford the parties and the arbitrators to identify the substantive issues that are addressed in the arbitration and to delimit the precise scope of the Arbitract Tribunal's mandate. The contents of the Terms of Reference which are provided in Article 18(1) include the summary of parties claims, the list of issues and procedural rules. For the effects of the Terms of Reference, they are not intended to replace the parties' arbitration agreement. But they may in certain circumstances be regarded as a form of submission agreement. Article 18(2) provides that the Terms of Reference shall be signed by the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal, and requires the Arbitral Tribunal to transmit a signed copy of the Terms of Reference to the Court within two months of the date on which the file was transmitted to it by the Secretariat. The Court enjoys the power to extend the two-month time limit for the Terms of Reference on the reasoned request of the Arbitral Tribunal or on the Court's own initiative. Article 18(3) provides that if any of the parties refuses to take part in the drawing up of the Terms of Reference or to sign the same, they shall be submitted to the Court for approval. Article 18(4) allows the Arbitral Tribunal to extablish in a separate document a provisional timetable. This is a provision that encourages the acceleration of the arbitraction process. The timetable provided for therein is merely "provisional" and may be modified, as necessary, during the course of the arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2014

These days, in line with the increase of opportunities in our country's firms to do transaction, large-scale M&A and investment with foreign firms incorporating arbitration clauses in the contracts have become general practice. Recently, Singapore has come to the fore as a place of arbitration and, particularly, Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) was assessed as the favored international arbitration institution uniquely in Asia at the 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, along with the ICC, LCIA, and AAA/ICDR. Therefore, the country's firms need to understand properly the international arbitration procedure of Singapore. This study examines the international arbitration system of Singapore, focusing on the arbitration procedure of the SIAC. The Center revised arbitration rules twice in 2010 and 2013, and established the Court of Arbitration of SIAC in April 2013 for the first time in Asia in pursuit of stricter neutrality and promptness. It further seeks to run the arbitration procedure fairly by selecting a third country's people as an arbitrator, while its arbitration expenses are cheaper than those of the ICC. The study believes that for the country's international arbitration institutions such as the KCAB to jump forward as a world-class international arbitration institution, the Korean government should render positive support to them, learning from Singapore which does not spare any political and financial assistance to cultivate international arbitration institutions. On the other hand, KCAB should also try hard to improve in the aspects of neutrality, fairness, and promptness and to be selected as a trustworthy international arbitration institution by firms in Asian countries.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2015

Arbitration clauses or institutional arbitration rules rarely, if ever, specify the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. A wide range of laws may thus govern this question, such as the law at the place of arbitration, the law where the agreement or the award is enforced or the law of the main contract between the parties. It is also conceivable that international uniform law or soft law may play a role. Tribunals and courts seized with this question must consequently decide which of these various laws shall apply to verify the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. This paper picks up on this controversially debated conflict of laws issue. At times, this debate is characterized by a strong divide between arbitration and international trade law practitioners. But are the different approaches really leading to diverging results in arbitral practice?

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.99-128
• /
• 2014

Last year, Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center(SIDRC) was set up to facilitate and promote international arbitration in Korea. This study was focused on the revision of arbitration rules such as ICC, SIAC, HKIAC and JCAA. As a leading arbitration institution in the world, ICC has tried continuously to provide more efficient service to their client by adopting emergency arbitrator(EA) & multi party arbitration. Other three institutions also introduced almost same mechanism to compete each other. These two new system is very innovative in international arbitration. First of all, EA was designed to provide interim measure service to preserve or protect parties' right before the constitution of arbitral tribunal. Arbitration institutions and arbitral tribunals should be careful to decide these requests are legitimate or not because too hasty approval on joinder or consolidation without full consideration such as parties' intention or argument may issue another serious problem - setting aside an award rendered after joined or consolidated.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.93-111
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the composition of the arbitration costs in ICC Rule of Arbitration and to examine how each item of the costs is determined. Furthermore this author tired to find the principles or criteria deciding which of the party should bear them or in what proportion they shall be home by the parties in Article 31. Thus this author could find three common approaches. First, all of the costs are home by the losing party, or Second, all of the costs are allocated in proportion to the result of award in each case. Third, all of the costs determined by the Court as shared equally by the parties and both parties bear their own costs. But, both parties may include their intention in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. For example if the parties with to ensure that the arbitration costs be shared equally and that the arbitrator make no allocation of costs and fees, the following sentence could be added to the arbitration clause. "All costs and expenses of the arbitrators (and the arbitral institution) shall be home by the parties equally; each party shall bear the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, of its own counsel, experts, witnesses and preparation and presentation of its case."

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.145-164
• /
• 2007

The Arbitration costs provided in Article 31 consist of arbitrators' fees, arbitrators' expenses, ICC administrative expenses, expenses of experts appointed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and parties' costs. Among them the first three items are independently determined by the Court in accordance with the Scale, while another two items are determined by the arbitrator and each party. The three items determined by the Court are communicated by Secretariat to the Arbitral Tribunal for inclusion in the award following the approval of the draft submitted to the Court. Also the final award may decide which of the parties shall bear them or in what proportion they shall be borne by the parties. According to Article 31(3), the arbitrators have complete jurisdiction or discretion to allocate the costs. Three common approaches are as follows; First, all of the costs are borne by the losing party. Second, all of the costs are allocated in proportion to the outcome of the case. Third, all of the costs determined by the Courts are shared equally by the parties and both parties bear their own costs. But, both parties may include intentions in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. For example, if the parties wish to ensure that the arbitration costs be shared equally and that the arbitrator make no allocation of costs or fees, the following sentence could be added to the arbitration clause in their contract. "All costs and expenses of the arbitrators [and the arbitral institution] shall be borne by the parties equally; each party shall bear the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, of its own counsel, experts, witness and preparation and presentation of its case" And also, if the parties wish expressly to link any allocation of costs, and fees to the result of the award the following could be added to the arbitration clauses. "The arbitrators may award to the prevailing party, if any, as determined by the arbitrators, its costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees"

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• pp.53-69
• /
• 1996

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.125-144
• /
• 2007

The objective of this study is to find out whether Korean companies which are doing a lot of commercial transactions with Indian companies can consider appointing ICA as a trustworthy institution and using ICA arbitration rules as a governing arbitration rule, when a dispute between Korean companies and Indian companies occurs. Up to now, in the case of dispute with Indian companies, Korean companies are hesitant to utilize ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a alternative dispute resolution, owing to lack of understanding on its rules. But, it is obvious that Korean companies which come to have better knowledge on ICA and its rules may consider more positively using ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a dispute resolution rather than using other arbitration institutions like ICC and KCAB etc. in the case of disputes with Indian companies because ICA arbitration rules are very objective and similar to other arbitration rules like ICC rules as well as KCAB(Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) international arbitration rules which are frequently being used by Korean companies and also have other several advantages like cheaper cost of arbitration and fast track arbitration procedures. In conclusion, ICA and its rules can also be recommended as a public-trustworthy arbitration option if Korean companies want to resolve some dispute cases with Indian companies.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.215-238
• /
• 2012

This paper is to review the interim measures of arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitration and to compare the emergency arbitrator systems of international arbitration institutions including the ICDR, SCC, SIAC, ACICA, and ICC. Most arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measures of protection. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 are regarded to contribute significantly to the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. A party that needs urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal may make an application for such measures. Major international arbitration institutions have their own rules and provisions for the emergency arbitrator system, which was set forth first by the ICRD in 2006. The application requirements for emergency arbitrators are almost the same. However, there are significant differences in details such as appointments and applications for challenging emergency arbitrators, the process and form of the emergency arbitrator's decision, etc. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider these differences for more desirable emergency arbitrator proceedings in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.411-446
• /
• 1997

This paper reports the results of an experimental companson of the winning rates in arbitral awards between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board and the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association, and analyzed the comparative advantages of KCAB in international arbitration compared with ICC. There are so many factors to analyze the level of internationalizaton and competitiveness in the arbitration. From the recent lituratures, arbitration experts reported and debated tremendous elements which is vital to have a competition in the international arbitration market. Arbitration factors such as fairness, reliability, awareness, extension, enforcement, inexpensiveness, closed and expedited proceedings, arbitrators, expert knowledge, service, arbitral award, etc. are very important to appraise the level of the globalization and competitiveness of arbitration organizations Using these factors, I appraised current level of the globalization and competitiveness of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, unique arbitration organization in South Korea. Next, we are able to compare the level of fairness using the concept of 'winning rate' All over the world, only several arbitration organizations published and opened their own arbitral awards even In anonymity. The Japanese arbitration institutions published it regularly as well as the Korean When compared with these two institutions' "winning rates". there is similiar tendency in favor of domestic corporations That is to say, the winning rates in domestic arbitration cases are greater than those in international arbitration cases. This embarks an implication of unequality, a part of unfairness, in these two countries' arbitration. Finally, an analysis was conducted between the statistics of KCAB and ICC, especially to the focus on the number of arbitration cases, arbitration tribunals, arbitration places, parties' nationalities. the types of contents, the amount of arbitration, arbitration costs. There are two meanings to keep in mind for advancement of Korean arbitration. One is to establish new strategy specializing in small amount arbitration less than US$200,000. The other is to rearrange the panel of arbitration, especially in increasing field of arbitration cases such as the disputes of license, technology transfer, patent, etc.