• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2012

Arbitration is an essential methods of settlement for disputes in international commercial transaction. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have been in force after adoption in 1976. Over the 30 years, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules have been modeled for domestic and international arbitration institutes for setting and revision on their arbitration rules. UNCITRAL Committee has published the revised Arbitration Rules which entered into force after 15 August 2010. Therefore new version of arbitration rules are substituted for the previous version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 since its enforcement. The revised arbitration rules of UNCITRAL have been changed in various items for convergence with new trends and modern practices on arbitration including information communication and technology. The revision of arbitration rules focused on resolving problems in practice and codifying best practice to enhance the efficiency of arbitration conducted under the rules. There are considerable in a number of important respects on the removing the restricted in writing requirement for information technology, adapting the multiparties arbitration, joinder arbitration, truncated arbitral tribunal and adjustment in terms and condition and construction simply. Also a number of provisions have been refined, varied and clarified with new articles included. Conclusively the new revised arbitration rules fill a number of gaps which became apparent in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 to bring into line with new modern practices of international arbitration rules in international commercial disputes. This paper focus on the study the problems and inspired points on significant revised provisions and its considerable points in arbitration environment. This paper is approaching to the comparisons of UNCITRAL revised Arbitration Rules 2010 with previous Arbitration Rules 1976 of UNCITRAL and International Arbitration Rules 2011 of KCAB.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2018

As the disputes in the investment and civil/commercial sectors of China and Taiwan have increased due to active cross-strait economic exchanges, the Chinese government is addressing cross-strait disputes through various dispute resolution methods. In recent years, the Arbitration Center Across the Straits (ACAS) has been established to resolve disputes between cross-strait parties, while ACAS Arbitration Rules have been enacted and enforced. ACAS Arbitration Rules are prepared by referring to the Arbitration Act of China and Taiwan, the relevant provisions and practices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules and the cross-strait practical affairs of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, and the cross-strait practical affairs giving consideration to the specificity of the cross-strait relationship and the characteristics of economic and trade disputes. Therefore, this paper has compared the features and main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules with those of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. This refers to arbitration proceedings such as form and effect of arbitration agreement, decision of place of arbitration, and organization of arbitral tribunal; the provision of consolidation of multiple contracts and arbitration, and the provision of joinder of arbitration parties, which are implementing the "principle of party autonomy" with streamlining arbitration proceedings and reducing costs; "common, simple, and small sum arbitration proceedings which require shorter arbitration proceedings depending on the size of the arbitration object; and regulations on the "interconnection of mediation and conciliation" which is characteristic of China's arbitration system. Based on the above-mentioned main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules in China, there are some implications to be considered in the establishment of the Arbitration Rules of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission which will be applied to solve commercial and investment disputes arising from the Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation process, suggesting implications such as the need for the rapid composition and operation of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission, requirements for selecting arbitrators, expansion of the object of arbitration, specification of concreteness in deciding the place of arbitration, need to create a variety of arbitration proceedings, and application plan of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) or Third Power Arbitration Agency.

• 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
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2002

When the ruling of Foreign Arbitral Awards contradicts the public policy of the enforcement state, it can be a ground for a refusal to enforce the ruling. New York Convention V section 2, UNCITRAL section 36, and Korean arbitration law section 36 confirm this principle. The final ruling of international arbitral awards should be respected according to the international convention or the principle of reciprocity, which cancel out the above principle: when the ruling contradicts the country's public policy, it can be refused to enforcement. Since the Helsinki General Convention, ILA have studied upon it and presented the final report and recommendation during the 2002 New Delhi General Convention. In it, firstly, the finality of awards rendered in the context of international commercial arbitration should be respected save in exceptional circumstances. Secondly, every state is recommended the “international public policy”, on which it can refuse to follow the ruling of international arbitral awards, and advised to respect it as far as possible.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.161-182
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this paper is to examine the applicability of the UNIDROIT Principle in international commercial arbitration. For this purpose, I have studies the basic two characters of this Principles: One is of general rule(principle); Another is of international and commercial character. According to CISG, questions concerning matters governed by the CISG which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles, so this Principles will cover many questions which are not expressly settled in the applicable law, by gap-filing, analogy or usage. In the preamble of this Principles, there are five cases in which the Principles shall be applied or may be applied. If the disputes are submitted to the any national court, the application of this Principles would be restricted because of the mandatory rules of national, international or supranational origin. But the disputes are submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator would have more discretional powers to apply the Principles than the judge. The reason is that in the arbitration, the arbitrators do not bear obligation to act in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of rules of private international law. I also examined the applicability of the Principles in cases which there are no mentions in preamble: When the international arbitrators choose the Principles; When the arbitrators decide ex aequo et bono; When the both parties have not chosen the governing law; When there are gaps in domestic law chosen by the parties; When the applicable domestic law is insufficient. In all these cases, the Principles may be applied more easily and conveniently in arbitration than in litigation. Thus to envisage the application of this Principle in international arbitration, first both parties in international commercial contracts should incorporate this Principle as a governing law in their contracts, and second, the arbitrators should try to apply this Principles in their arbitrations by choice, analogy, general principles or usage.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.81-119
• /
• 2006

The parties in the trade can have full autonomy and can resolve disputes independently, impartially and without delay by selecting arbitration by agreement. Korea and Japan had revised their Arbitration Laws to incorporate as many provisions of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as possible. Japan had amended its century-old arbitration law, becoming the 45th country to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on International commercial arbitration. New Arbitration Law was enacted as Law No.138 of 2003 and effective on March 1, 2004, is applicable to both national and international arbitration. Korea had amended its arbitration law on December 31, 1999 and its New Arbitration Law incorporates the most of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as Japan. Arbitration must be popular in resolving international commercial disputes in Northeast Asian bloc in order to increase the volume of intra-trade in the Northeast Asian bloc. But in order for the parties to make use of arbitration in the bloc, the arbitration laws of nations in the bloc must have similarity and unification. As Korea and Japan playes important roles in the bloc, both nations's arbitration laws must be studied in view of similarity and difference to unify both nations' arbitration laws by way of showing an example. Therefore, this paper deals with both nations' arbitration laws in view of comparative law to unify their arbitration laws and Northeast Asian Nations' arbitration laws.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제63권
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2014

With the development of Chinese commercial arbitration, there have been a large number of cases regarding the parties raised objection to the jurisdiction in arbitration and judicial practice. The argument relating to dealing with the subject matter, time limitation, identified subject of arbitration objection to the jurisdiction as well as the inadequate of Chinese Arbitration Law and relevant judicial interpretations has caused adverse impact on the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. This paper firstly look ar the overview of the arbitration jurisdiction objection, mainly on the arbitration jurisdiction objection determination and what is arbitration jurisdiction objection. The raise and abandonment of the arbitration objection to jurisdiction then will be analyzed in terms of subject, form, time and the legal consequences of giving up. The third part illustrates the handling of arbitration jurisdiction objection, main body, practices, procedures and whether the arbitration objection to jurisdiction is established. And the last part discuss how the condition of effectiveness on the arbitral agreement applies to through Chinese cases. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures relates to arbitration agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese partner.