• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.453-479
• /
• 2012

국제상거래의 증가는 분쟁의 증가로 나타나 소송이나 중재로 명확히 반영되고 있다. 국제상거래의 중요성에도 불구하고, 최근까지 어떻게 법이 실제 무역관행과 상호작용하는지 잘 알지 못하고 있다. 전 세계에 걸쳐 소송과 중재법정은 국제물품매매계약에서 CISG를 준거법으로 적용하고 있지만, 해결되지 않는 문제점에 대한 국제 판례가 축적되고 있다. 이런 점에서 국제 판례법에 대한 유니렉스(UNILEX) 데이터베이스는 대표적인 사례라 할 수 있다. 오늘날 확실히 CISG가 국제상사계약에서 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있지만, CISG가 경성법(hard law)으로서의 특징 때문에 갖는 한계로 준거법 적용에 따른 문제가 있다. 이에 비하여 UPICC는 국제협약이나 법률이 아닌 국제상거래일반의 법의 리스테이트먼트(restatement)이다. 즉 연성법(soft law)으로서 UPICC는 CISG보다도 유연하고 포괄적이다. 따라서 본 연구는 UPICC 2010년 개정에 착안하여 2012년 8월 현재까지 유니렉스(UNILEX)에 포함된 CISG와 UPICC의 적용사례 통계를 비교 분석하여 UPICC가 CISG의 한계를 보완하는 기능을 담당할 수 있음은 물론이고, 더 나아가 국제상거래의 준거법으로서 적용에도 유용성이 있음을 밝혀 UPICC의 국제상거래에서의 적용을 촉진하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2020

The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid is becoming more popular since it makes an amicable relationship and thorough statement possible. The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid has been used to take advantage of both dispute resolution methods. In a Med-Arb process, negotiating a resolution to disputes is attempted with a mediator's help. If the mediation ends in an impasse or issues remain unresolved, parties can move on to arbitration. Med-Arb can also be cost-effective when disputants hire one person to serve as mediator and arbitrator (Med-Arb-Pure). However, it can disturb the fairness and neutrality of arbitrators, and awards can be annulled. Indeed, "Award by Consent" is different from the "Med-Arb-Pure" process. Arbitrators easily confuse them. Only the parties settle on the arbitral proceedings' course, and the arbitrator can help them (award by consent). The role and skill of a mediator are different from an arbitrator's. Disputants have the right to use a mediator who specializes in mediation. Moreover, mediation communication confidentiality is the essential value of mediation, and this should be protected. Therefore, in the process of "Med-Arb," separation between mediating and arbitrating is a better choice to specialize in each expertise. In this process, "Med-Arb" can be an affordable, expeditious, proper, and effective method of resolving international commercial disputes and continuing ADR prime time.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2011

These days utilization of copyright in daily life and economic activities is becoming more important than ever, and IT technology is developing day by day. Along with those fact, copyright infringement and dispute is naturally increasing. This thesis dealt with the 3 different issues of ADR on copyright. The First part, introduce ADR system that was performed by Korea Copyright Committee according to Copyright law. This paper evaluate the committee's efforts to provide resolution of copyright disputes via conciliation was effective. So it needs to be look over several countries' ADR, beside conventional judicial remedy. And Korea's copyright conciliation system which is successfully operating also introduced. Second, In many countries, including South Korea are take advantage of conciliation as the way to settle down the dispute over copyright. Furthermore, looked over if we can use arbitration as tool to settle dispute or not. Currently in Korea, patent dispute is handled by Industrial Property Dispute Conciliation Committee(The Invention Promotion Act Ch.5) and Layout-design Review and Mediation Committee(The Act on the Layout-designs of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Art.29-34), but using performance of those two committee is still too low. In comparison, the copyright committee, a affiliation organization of the ministry of culture, sports and tourism has much more result in conciliation compare with patent dispute. Copyright disputes has arbitrability of it's subject-matter and many regulating organs are interested in it. (especially, binding of arbitral award and final resolution). Take advantage of both conciliation and arbitration could be good way to resolve copyright disputes. Third, the writer look at the proposal on the creation of Northeast Regional Center for Intellectual Property ADR. Because of the nature of copyright and rapid development of internet technology, international use of work become more frequent and accordingly infringement cases are increasing. The role of commercial arbitration regimes and institutions which has progressed significantly worldwide level, but which has only just begun in the intellectual property ADR area, leads also to a clash of often very different legal cultures and protection in a market economy. International cooperation in regional area with conflict interests becomes an important alternative. But it will depend on the building of regional institutions and mechanisms. The feasibility of this proposal and preconditions were examined. Establishment of new international organization requires a lot of time, cost and efforts. And risk of failure is much too high. Therefore factual, statistical review should be preceded. In addition, technical measures, such as on-line arbitration is necessary to review also. Furthermore in order to establish new organization, the relative law, legal environment, public sentiment and international compliance must be carefully considered with factual review about the needs and economic benefits of each country Yet on complex regulatory matters such as IP and ADR, a great deal of the potential benefits from international standards arises not from the international legal framework nor even the formal content of national legislation, but from the informed and effective use made of the possibilities within the system, including by policymakers and regulators.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.31-47
• /
• 2008

An arbitrator's duty shall be independence and impartiality such as a judge who has procedurally absolute position. Independence is the freedom from others, impartiality is the status of having no-partial condition. Although these show relevance between independence and impartiality, in actuality, it is not easy to prove them. Therefore, arbitrator has to prove his or her position by opening the public of reality and by having an obligation of notification. Each country which applies Arbitration rules or Arbitration act stays the same as Korean Commercial Arbitration Board does. Hence, each country has the moral principles in order to establish a standard of judgement for essential factors and requests preferentially the impartiality and the publicity. In reality, court of justice in England excludes arbitrator who has the close relation to a person concerned. Justice in France cancelled an authorization of arbitrator because of having the economic interest to the person concerned. And also, In United States, Federal Court reverses an arbitration judgment without giving any partiality to a person concerned because of not opening a public about the relationship between arbitrator and a person concerned. Therefore, decision basis of the independence and the impartiality is standardized by the economic interest of a person concerned, professional relation, society connection, relationship between arbitrator and arbitration representative in the same case while in process of arbitration, arbitrator's nationality If arbitrator does not keep the independence and the impartiality by a position of judge, he or she has to make responsible. this duty is divided by two things: civil case and crime case. and if arbitrator does break this responsibility, he or she will get the cancellation of judge and compensation of damage. However, Korea is placed in the real circumstance without judge precedent and moral principles including the independence and impartiality. In order to getting the good reputation of international arbitration institution, this country will have to enact principles of the independence and impartiality for arbitrator.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.57-84
• /
• 2009

This Study attempts to compare and analyze on Principle of Change Circumstances under th CISG, PICC and PECL which are covered international commercial contract. In many international commercial contract, time is very important because delays in performance are sanctioned heavily by substantial penalty clauses. When change in circumstances affects contract performance, the contract will often not be suspended or terminated. Therefore, principle of change circumstances is being prepared of fluidity of contract environment and its effect in general. Taking into consideration the problems relating to the renegotiation or adaptation in the cases of radical change of circumstances where the CISG applies, it is suggested that the contracting parties should make clear their intentions, that is, whether they will provide for the possibility of renegotiation where the price of goods has been altered by inserting a hardship clause or for the possibility of mutual discharge from liability in the cases of economic impossibility or hardship by inserting a force majeure clause. Such provision will be desirable especially in situations where there is a long term contract, the price of goods sold tends to fluctuate in the international commerce, or where especially in contracts subjected to arbitration, the parties subject their contract to legal sources or principles of supranational character. Therefore, this study has shown that the hardship provisions in the CISG, PICC and PECL has similarities to each a validity defense and an excuse defense. it was provisions that CISG governs this issue in Article 79, PICC Article 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and PECL Article 6.111.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2008

This paper is to research the current status of ADR in Korea, the qualifications of mediator (or conciliator) and arbitrator, the ADR education program of major foreign arbitration-related institutions and the efficient management device of ADR education program for the activation of the ADR system. In 2007, arbitration applications received at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board numbered 320 and the amount involved those cases was US$ 216 millions. Mediation applications received at the KCAB numbered 552 and the amount involved those cases US$ 29millions. As of December 2007, the total numbers of arbitrators on the KCAB Panel of Arbitrators was 978. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and Arbitration Act of Korea. The KCAB has the consolidation regulation of the Panel of Arbitrator of which purpose is to regulate the criteria and procedure regarding the drawing up and maintenance of the panel of arbitrators. The UK Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has the criteria and qualifications for membership of which three grades are associate, member and fellow. The American Arbitration Association has the qualification criteria for admittance to the AAA National Roster of Arbitrators and Mediators. The Japan Association of Arbitrators has the official authorization regulation for membership of which three grades are special associate, ordinary associate and fellow. The UK Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has the ADR education programs which are composed of the mediation courses and arbitration courses. The American arbitrators Association has the ADR education programs which are composed of in-person training and online training. The Japan Association of Arbitrators has the ADR education programs which are composed of the cultivation courses of conciliator and the practical training courses of arbitrator. The efficient management devices of ADR education program are as follows: the execution of official authorization system of arbitrator, the establishment of specialized division for training and official authorization, the establishment of ADR regular training courses, the publication of ADR training texts and obtaining of instructors, and the consolidation of regulations related to the official authorization of arbitrator and ADR training. In conclusion, for the activation of ADR system, the KCAB and Korean Association of Arbitrators should make further effort to provide the ADR regular education and training programs for potential and practicing conciliators and arbitrators.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.