• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.239-257
• /
• 2011

This article examines the requirements of Article 37 of the ICDR International Arbitration Rules and issues that could arise if a party petitions a U.S. Federal Court to enforce an emergency arbitrator's Article 37 decision to grant pre-arbitration provisional relief. On May 1, 2006, ICDR introduced a new procedure for the granting of emergency arbitral relief under its ICDR Rules. The procedure enables a party to apply for emergency interim relief before the appointment of an arbitrator or tribunal to adjudicate the merits of the dispute. Instead, the application for emergency relief is considered by an emergency arbitrator appointed by the ICDR. In short, the ICDR has quickly appointed emergency arbitrator and resolved a challenge to an appointment within 36 hours. In addition, the emergency decisions have been issued within just a couple of weeks. In particular, we looked at what would happen after Article 37 emergency relief is granted. Based on my examination of U.S. cases on the enforceability of interim awards and orders, We conclude that U.S. courts would enforce Article 37 interim measures, whether they are characterized by the emergency arbitrator as an interim order or award. Where the situation warrants, arbitration executives should embrace and use emergency relief procedure of ICDR Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.65-83
• /
• 2011

The purpose of Emergency Arbitrator System is to provide parties with the possibility of obtaining interim measures before constitution of the arbitral tribunal. This paper examines the Emergency Arbitrator System set forth in Article 32 and Appendix II of Arbitration Rules of Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) in comparison with Article 37 of ICDR International Arbitration Rules. This paper also provides a case study of 4 Decisions rendered by Emergency Arbitrators under the auspices of SCC in 2010. It was found that it took only 4 days on average from the date upon which the request for emergency interim measures was registered to SCC to the decision rendered by Emergency Arbitrators. The figures of average days reflect its rapidity well, one of the most preferred characteristics of arbitration. However, a case study of SCC decisions shows that only one request for interim measures was successfully granted. In other words, it was found that the requirements for granting of interim measures by emergency arbitrator were quite strictly applied. If interim measures is to be granted, it was found that the requesting party should prove to satisfy the requirements for granting of interim measures as follows: First, the requesting party has to demonstrate that it may suffer irreparable or serious harm in commercially-sensible, not in a strictly literal sense unless the interim measure is granted. Second, the party requesting interim measures has to persuade the Emergency Arbitrator that the request was of an urgent nature. Third, the requesting party is required to meet the reasonable possibility that it may succeed on the merits of the claim.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.67-90
• /
• 2010

Electronic discovery refers to the discovery of electronically stored information. The differences between producing paper documents and electronic information can be categorized into seven groups: massive volume, persistence, dynamic and changeable contents, metadata, environment-dependence, dispersion and searchability. Since these differences make the discovery more expensive and less expeditious, it is necessary to limit the scope of discovery. Accordingly, a number of arbitration institutions have already introduced rules, guidelines or protocols on electronic discovery. ICDR guidelines take a minimal approach and address only the proper form of electronic document. CIArb Protocol is intended to act as a checklist for discovery of electronic data. CPR Protocol offers four modes of discovery of electronic documents ranging from minimal to extensive among which the parties may choose the way of electronic discovery. IBA Rules on Evidence and ICC Rules are silent on the issue of electronic discovery, however, working parties of the ICC are considering updates to the rules to deal with electronic discovery. It is disputed whether rules, guidelines or protocols on electronic discovery is necessary or appropriate. Although some have suggested that existing rules can make adequate provision for electronic discovery, it is more desirable to prepare new rules, guidelines or protocols to make arbitrators and counsels be familiar with electronic discovery process, to provide an adequate standard for electronic discovery and to limit the time and cost of electronic discovery. Such rules on electronic discovery should include provisions regarding the form of electronic document production, conference between parties regarding electronic discovery, keyword search, bearing the expenses to reduce disputes over electronic discovery.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• 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.