• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.63-82
• /
• 2016

In order to cope with the changes of International Commercial Arbitration, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) regulated an Emergency Arbitrator for the first time, implementing the arbitration rules in China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone on May 1, 2014. Moreover, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) also regulated the Emergency Arbitrator in the revised arbitration rules on January 1, 2015. However, it caused considerable contradiction that SHIAC and CIETAC admitted an interim measure decision by the Emergency Arbitrator under the circumstance that the Chinese court can impose a preservative measure in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Arbiration Act. This study attempted to compare the main contents of an Emergency Arbitrator regulated in the arbitration rules of SHIAC and CIETAC with arbitration rules of representative arbitral institutions which operate an Emergency Arbitrator. In addition, this study verified the application features and problems through comparing the rule of SHIAC and CIETAC with the rule related to the preservative measure in Chinese law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.141-163
• /
• 2012

In Korea, although nearly all maritime arbitration cases are dealt with by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), the total number of cases that are referred to the KCAB is relatively small compared with the total number of maritime cases that occur in Korea. There may be reasons why maritime arbitration is not utilized more in Korea. However, of the above reasons, the superseding one may be that there is still a lack of confidence in the credibility and foreseeability of maritime arbitration in Korea. To expand the use of maritime arbitration in Korea, it is essential that the base surrounding maritime arbitration be expanded. In addition, it is also necessary that specialists receivetraining in maritime law. In this context, it is strongly recommended that maritime and admiralty law be taught in law schools and be included as a regular subject on the Korean bar exam. Additionally, to promote maritime arbitration, a rule should be introduced allowing for shortened arbitration proceedings in Korea. Although Chapter 8 of the KCAB Arbitration Rules provide for "Expedited Procedure," this process alone is not because the rules for Expedited Procedure generally apply in arbitration cases where both parties have agreed in a separate agreement to follow the procedures provided or in any domestic arbitration valued atless than 100,000,000 Korean won. Therefore, the KCAB Arbitration Rules for Expedited Procedure must be reformed to encompass international arbitrations. Additionally, experts who are experienced in the maritime sector should be elected as arbitrators. Given the factthat a fair number of arbitration cases can be characterized as international, it is important that businesspersons who are very fluent in English be appointed as arbitrators in order to increase the reliability of maritime arbitration in Korea and save costs. Meanwhile, because lawyers and scholars constitute a considerable portion of KCAB arbitrators, commercial persons from relevant industries should be enlisted as arbitrators. Even though there are arguments for the establishment of an independent maritime arbitration board in Korea, establishment of a separate maritime arbitration board will not directly guarantee the prosperity of maritime arbitration in Korea. Instead of instituting a new maritime arbitration board, it is better that a reorganized KCAB modify existing arbitration proceedings to make them faster and more economical if maritime arbitration is to prosper. In this regard, ad-hoc arbitration would be an option for speedy and thrifty maritime arbitration. Finally, to gain the confidence of domestic and foreign parties, we cannot ignore the importance of advertising the specialties and qualifications of the KCAB and its personnel among business entities.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.161-184
• /
• 2020

In the process of the annulment of arbitral awards, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court contributes to keeping Switzerland as a venue for international arbitration. Challenges to an award rendered in Switzerland are handled by the Swiss Supreme Court only. Furthermore, the Swiss law provides extremely limited grounds (PILA 190) for the potential challenge of the award and those are different from what model law countries have. For example, violations of the parties' agreed procedural arrangements will not be grounds for the annulment of an award in Swiss. In arbitration, the intervention of a national court is necessary to protect justice but at the same time, it can impede the process of arbitration, even making it useless. Limited intervention of the Swiss Supreme Court protects the efficiency, autonomy, and justice of international arbitration. International Arbitration has to be simple and fast to solve complex international commercial problems and to promote trade. Therefore, the process and technique to be applied on an Arbitration-friendly Swiss court should be considered.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.165-177
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this comparative study is to compare and evaluate international arbitration and forum selection agreements. Recent decades have seen an unparalleled expansion of global trade and investment. Business enterprises of every description ann find themselves entangled in legal proceedings with foreign companies or government entities. Thus, the costs of these proceedings and the consequences of losing are often substantial. Almost, every international commercial controversy poses a critical preliminary question - 'where, and by whom, will this dispute be decided?' the answer to this question often decisively affects a dispute's eventual outcome. It can mean the difference between winning and losing. between de minimis damages and a multimillion dollar award. The same dispute can have materially different outcomes in different forums. Because of the importance of forum selection, parties to international contracts often include contractual dispute resolution provisions in their agreements. These provisions significantly reduce the uncertainties inherent in international commercial disputes, and can offer a substantial measure of partisan advantage. as a consequence, it is almost always advisable to include a contractual dispute resolution provision in any international contract. These provisions typically take the form of : (1) forum selection clauses, or (2) arbitration agreements.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.315-344
• /
• 1996

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.39-52
• /
• 2019

There are various factors to consider when parties to an international agreement draft a dispute resolution clause in their written contract. These factors can be classified into two categories. The first category is about the parties and the nature of the contract, such as the parties' places of business and whether the contract contains a simple transaction or has a complicated nature. The second category is about the applicable rules of the parties' places of business or performance such as the private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of court judgment and arbitration award rules. When parties to an international contract agree to a litigation, they normally choose a forum court and a governing law. In selecting a forum court and a governing law, the parties must consider private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of judgement rules of candidate forums. In case the parties agree to an arbitration, they have to choose between institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. For ad hoc arbitration, parties still need to further agree on which arbitration rules to use, and in which place the arbitration shall take place. Mediation involves a similar kind of decision as with arbitration. Traditionally, national courts of the parties' places of business have been used as litigation forums in dispute resolution clauses but, recently, arbitration is being increasingly employed as an alternative dispute resolution method in international contracts. Moreover, there have been international efforts to utilize mediation as a dispute resolution method in international commercial issues. Rather than simply taking a dispute resolution clause provided in a sample written contract, parties to an international contract must carefully consider various relevant factors in order to insert a dispute resolution clause which will work well for a particular contract.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2013

Overriding Mandatory rules are laws that purport to apply irrespective of the law chosen by the parties to govern their contractual relations. This article examines their role and applicability in international arbitration. The overriding mandatory rules pose a complex and continuing problem for arbitrators because they put the interests of states and parties in direct competition. When a law says that arbitrators must apply it, yet the parties' contract excludes it, what should the arbitrators do? Where should their allegiance lie? The answer depends on the underlying nature of arbitration - and since that can be legitimately conceptualized in different ways, a principled approach to overriding mandatory rules seems to be impossible to provide. Nevertheless, a practical solution is required, because there were European cases in which courts voided valid arbitration agreements made, reasoning that arbitrators certainly would not apply and/or take into account its overriding mandatory rules of indemnity right granted to commercial agent and distributor in Europe. Therefore, this paper first examines status of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international litigation and then explores any possibility of application of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international commercial arbitration. With this analysis, the author reaches into a conclusion that the arbitrator should and/or take into account overriding mandatory rules of another law, yet should limit to them of the country where characteristic performance is made under the contract.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.217-234
• /
• 2007

동북아시아 국가들은 세계 무역 및 투자에 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있다. 동북아시아 역내 및 역외 국가들과의 경제교류는 앞으로 계속 늘어날 것으로 전망되며, 이로 인한 국제상사분쟁은 국제상사중재 등 ADR에 의해 해결될 수밖에 없을 것이다. 동북아시아에서 ADR 제도가 발전되기 위해서는 무엇보다도 한국의 대한상사중재원, 북한의 조선국제무역중재위원회, 중국의 중국국제경재무역중재위원회, 일본의 일본상사중재협회, 러시아의 러시아상공회의소 부설 국제상사중재법정, 카자흐스탄의 카자흐스탄국제중재기관, 몽골국가중재법정 상호간의 중재 업무 전반에 관한 협력제제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 국제상사중재에 관하여 동북아시아에 새로운 바람이 불고 있다. 경제자유구역 및 남북간 경제교류와 관련한 상사분쟁이 상사중재로 해결될 수 있는 법, 제도적 기반이 마련되었기 때문이다. 지난 해 한국에서는 대한상사중재원 주도하에 무역클레임 센서스가 실시되고 국제중재세미나가 개최되었으며 국제중재규칙이 제정(2007년도 2월 1일 시행 예정)된바 있다. 동북아시아 지역에서 국제상사중재제도가 발전되고 저변이 확대되기 위해서는 중재기관들 간의 협조체제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 한편 한국도 동북아시아의 중재허브로 성장하기 위해서는 국제금융, M&A 등 중재 영역을 확대하고 경제자유구역 및 남북상사중재 등과 같은 새로운 영역에 대처를 잘 해야 할 것이다. 아울러 정부 당국의 재정적 지원과 행정적 배려도 수반되어야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 지난 10월 26일 및 27일 양일간에 걸쳐 서울의 Grand Intercontinental Hotel에서 개최된 국제중재학술대회 ICC/KCAB/KOCIA Conference에서 발표된 것으로 외국 변호사들의 이해를 돕기 위해 우리나라 중재법의 주요 내용을 설명하되, 특히 뉴욕협약과 국제상사중재에 관한 유엔모범법과 차이가 있는 부분을 주로 설명하였다. 이 논문은 우리나라 중재법이 규율하는 분야 중에서 그 적용범위, 중재적격, 통지의 서면성, 중재합의의 형식, 중간구제조치의 집행, 중재의 준거법 및 중재인의 선정 등에 관하여 설명하였다. 또한 이 논문은 우리나라가 일본, 중국 및 우리나라를 포함하는 동북아무역과 관련한 분쟁에서 중재의 중심지가 되어야 할 것을 역설하고, 이를 위해서 우리나라 유일의 중재기관인 대한상사중재원이 중재인 및 사무국 분야에서 개선이 필요함을 주장하였다.