• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제12권3호
• /
• pp.137-146
• /
• 2007

대한민국은 중국 일본과 같이 바다로 인접하여, 항해를 하거나 조업을 위한 배타적 경제수역(EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone) 때문에 분재의 소지를 담고 있다. 특히 해상 사고에서 어선의 경우 조업일지와 항해장비의 부실 등으로 국가 간 분쟁 시 증거자료 채택할 수 있는 경우는 드물다. 해상에서 컴퓨터 등의 디지털 증거는 무결성이 훼손된다면 결정적인 증거가 재판정에서 기각당하거나 국제적으로 분쟁 시 증거로 채택되지 않는다. 본 논문에서는 이 문제점을 해결하는 방안으로 해상 디지털 포렌식을 제안하면서, 공해상 선박에서 디지털 포렌식 자료를 위한 주요내용, 요구사항, 적용사항 및 선박 디스크, 선박 네트워크, 선박 무선 포렌식 자료를 추출하고 이를 입증하는 방법을 제시한다. 그리고 실제 공해상에서 해상 디지털 포렌식의 사례에 관한 실증연구를 하여, 분쟁소지가 많은 선박에서 과학수사의 일환으로 활용될 것이며, 디지털 포렌식의 증거가 채택되는 국제간의 공해상 분쟁해결의 중요한 열쇠가 될 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.29-46
• /
• 2022

Until recently, there has been a circuit split as to whether parties to foreign private arbitral proceedings could seek assistance from the U.S. courts for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782. The circuit courts have differed on the issue of whether a private arbitral proceeding may be considered a "proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal" in terms of the statute, which would ultimately allow or disallow judicial assistance in taking of evidence by the U.S. district courts for use in the requested proceedings. While the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the applicability of §1782 in its Intel decision in 2004, it had not established a test as to what constitutes a foreign or international tribunal for the purposes of §1782, thereby leaving it open for lower courts to continue to interpret §1782 in their own ways, as requests for judicial assistance in taking of evidence are filed. In the recent decision of ZF Auto. US, Inc., v. Luxshare, Ltd., the Supreme Court has finally clarified that in order for an arbitral panel to be a "foreign or international tribunal" under §1782, such panels must exercise governmental authority conferred by one nation or multiple nations. Therefore, private commercial arbitral panels are not "foreign or international tribunal(s)" for the purposes of §1782 because they do not constitute governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies. Such holding is necessary and legitimate for interested parties in international arbitration, as well as, potential parties of arbitration who are contemplating alternative dispute resolution for their dispute(s).

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권4호
• /
• pp.287-311
• /
• 2013

본 연구는 대위중재에서의 당사자적격성과 관련하여 복잡하게 전개될 수 있는 시비를 해결할 수 있는 방향의 설정에 대해 고찰하였다. 결함문제를 해결하기 위해 전례를 분석해 본 결과, 대위중재로 중재판정에 이른 사례는 찾아볼 수 있지만 대위중재 그 자체에 대한 판정이유는 불분명하다. 기존의 법원판례는 대위중재를 허용하는 듯 안 하는 듯 애매모호하고 대위중재의 허용여부에 대한 직접적인 법원의 판례는 찾아보기 힘들다. 또한 어느 한 국가의 판례로는 국제거래에서 발생하는 대위중재에 대해 단정할 수도 없다. 대위중재가 자동으로 허용되는지 아닌지 분명하지 않으면 전략적 차원에서 볼 때 분쟁해결절차의 경우의 수는 너무나 많아 수많은 사회적 비용을 치르게 된다. 따라서 향후 대위중재의 허용여부에 대한 국제적 통일지침의 확정이 긴요한 바, 본고에서는 자동차 대위중재제도, 공백과 상호주의 그리고 코즈정리의 관점에서 고찰한 결과 확정오퍼가설에 입각한 대위중재의 제도정립이 바람직하다는 결론에 이르렀다. 대위중재사건을 맡은 중재인들이나 판사들, 그리고 관련자들이 확정오퍼가설에 입각하여 대위중재에서의 당사자적격성을 판단한다면 본고에서 살펴본 대위중재와 관련한 문제점들을 대부분 해결할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 또한 국제적으로도 대위중재에 대한 확정오퍼가설이 확산됨으로써 대위중재의 일관된 해결원리가 확정오퍼가설로 수렴되기를 기대한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.131-149
• /
• 2000

In connection with international commercial arbitration the need to seek interim relief is generally recognized. Interim reliefs address the requirements of a party for immediate and temporary protection of rights or property pending a decision on the merits by the arbitral tribunal. The most common forms of interim relief are attachments and injunctions. If the arbitral tribunal has not yet been appointed, an application for interim relief must usually be addressed to the local courts at the place of commercial arbitration. If the arbitral tribunal has been appointed, the application for interim relief is first made to the arbitral tribunal. Interim relief by the arbitral tribunal is in the form of a direction to the parties. Since the arbitral tribunal has no enforcement power, it may be necessary to have a arbitral tribunal's direction confirmed by a local court which can enforce its order. The New York Convention does not provide for interim reliefs. The question is whether Article II(3) of the New York Convention that the court "shall, at the request of one of the parties, refer the parties to arbitration" denies jurisdiction to courts to grant interim reliefs in international commercial arbitration. Some cases have indicated that the U. S. court have no power to grant interim relief. Other cases have indicated that the U. S. courts do have the power to grant interim relief. It is unlikely that a U. S. court will order interim relief in relation to an commercial arbitration in a foreign country. Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules provides with respect to interim measures of protection. Section 1 of Article 26 of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules provides that the arbitral tribunal may take any interim measures it deems necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, including measures for the conservation of the goods forming the subject matter in dispute. This article gives the arbitral tribunal the broadest authority, not limited to safeguarding property. Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. It may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures. The International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration do not expressly empower the arbitral tribunal to grant interim reliefs. However, Article 8.5 of the ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration provides that the parties shall be at liberty to apply to any competent judicial authority for interim measures. In conclusion, the power of the arbitral tribunal to provide interim reliefs is generally recognized in the arbitration rules of arbitral institutions. However, the arbitral tribunal's authority is limited by its lack of enforcement mechanisms. It is generally recognized that the local courts have power to grant interim reliefs in aid of an commercial arbitration. However, local courts are reluctant to grant interim reliefs if that decision requires an adjudication of issues within the special competence of the arbitral tribunal.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• 제33권4호
• /
• pp.485-495
• /
• 2011

On February 11, 2011, upon request of the International Seabed Authority, 'the Seabed Dispute Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(henceforth Chamber)' rendered its advisory opinion on the responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area. The advisory opinion covered three questions: What are the legal responsibilities and obligations of the sponsoring states with respect to the sponsorship of activities in the Area? What is the extent of liability of a State Party for any failure to comply with the LOS Convention and relevant instruments? What are the necessary and appropriate measures that a sponsoring State must take in order to fulfil its responsibilities? In particular, the Chamber delivered its opinion on the different responsibilities and obligations of developed and developing sponsoring states. This paper reviews the above three questions through analyzing the advisory opinion and makes some recommendations for the fulfillment of the responsibilities and obligations of Korea as a sponsoring states.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• pp.27-44
• /
• 2024

The lack of consistency and predictability of arbitral awards in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement ("ISDS") mechanism has long been a subject of criticism. In international investment disputes, arbitral tribunals have frequently come up with different interpretations and results on similar investment agreement provisions. The arbitral tribunal's inconsistent decisions raised concerns not only among the parties to the investment dispute but also amongthe arbitral tribunals in other cases, which ultimately led to legal inconsistencies in international investment law. Arbitration awards may have some degree of disagreement in interpretation. However, the systemic inconsistencies that pervade ISDS risk undermining the purpose of the investment agreement system, which is to provide a predictable and stable framework to protect andpromote foreign investment while maintaining a balance with host state regulations. Therefore, this study proposes a plan to resolve this discrepancy and review standards for practical application. Reform of the ISDS mechanism could be a viable option to reduce, to some extent, the inconsistencies in interpretation, if not completely eliminate them. Reforms such as establishingguidelines, promoting cooperation between arbitral tribunals, and codifying the norms of the agreement can provide a means of reducing interpretive inconsistencies and strengthening the legitimacy of the ISDS mechanism. Reforming the ISDS mechanism will require all stakeholders to carefully consider the issues and the scope, nature, and feasibility of eachpotential reform.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.55-77
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to make a research on the administration and practical problems of the arbitral organization called "uth-North Commercial Arbitration Commission". The Arbitration Commission shall be set up under the South-North Agreements officially called "reement on Settlement Procedure of Commercial Dispute" and "reement on Organization and Administration of the South-North Arbitration Commission" between the South and the North of Korea. A variety means of dispute settlement including friendly consultations, conciliation and arbitration called Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) will be used frequently and institutionally to settle commercial disputes and conflicts arising from economic transactions between the South and the North of Korea. Under the circumstances, it is becoming a problem of vital importance how to operate the Arbitration Commission for the prompt and effective settlement of the South-North commercial disputes. First of all, the South and the North of Korea should recognize the availability of prompt and effective means of dispute resolution such as arbitration and conciliation to be made by the Arbitration Commission would promote the orderly growth and encouragement of th South-North trade and investment, for which the following measures should be taken as soon as possible : 1. Enactment of the South-North Arbitration Rules. 2. Designation of the arbitral institution by North-Korean side. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) was already designated officially as the arbitral organization of South Korean side as of April 17, 2007. 3. Arbitration shall be held in the place where the respondent has his domicile, in case that both parties fail to agree as to the place of arbitration. 4. Permission of a third country arbitration in case that both parties agree to do so. 5. To become a member country of international arbitration agreements including the New York Convention.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2009

Concepts of mediation and conciliation as alternative dispute resolutions are often confusingly used. As to what is meant by mediation and conciliation, there is no uniform legal definition. However, there has been a distinction between two methods of dispute settlement under the international law (UN Charter, WTO DSU, NAFTA, EU mediation directive, WIPO Mediation Rules) although there is no clear definition on the terms of mediation and conciliation. And also under the domestic law such as U.K, France, Germany, a clear distinction has been made between two terms. Mediation means a facilitated negotiation between two parties through the intervention of a third party. A third and neutral party (mediator) help the parties in dispute to find their solution by managing a certain mediation protocol and facilitating communication between the parties while in conciliation, a third party evaluative the case and can suggest the parties a legally non-binding solution. Once the parties accept it, it becomes binding between them. However, in the U.S,, it seems that there is no practical use of distinguishing mediation and conciliation. The term of mediation is more commonly used than the term of conciliation and it has two kinds of mediation such as facilitative and evaluative mediation. Korea's conciliation system is close to conciliation or evaluative mediation. In conclusion, what is distinct between mediation and conciliation is the role of third party. If a neutral third party takes a role of advisor or facilitator, then he or she may employ a proper protocol to help the parties to find themselves their solution (mediation) while if a neutral person plays a role of evaluator, then he or she listens to the parties and suggest a solution to them (conciliation).

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

우주법상의 분쟁은 전문적, 기술적 성격을 띠고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 우주개발 기술이 발전된 선진국과 개발도상국가와의 이해관계의 차이가 매우 크다는 점에서 독특한 측면이 있다. 현재의 우주관련 협정들의 분쟁해결조항들을 분석해 보면 국가가 그들의 주권과 충돌하는 문제에 대해서 아직도 불신과 의구심을 드러내고 있다는 사실을 쉽게 간파할 수 있다. 그들은 사법적 판결이나 구속력 있는 중재에 분쟁해결을 의뢰하는 것을 꺼린다. 이러한 규정들은 정치적, 경제적, 사회적 이익과 인구통계학적 특성이 상이한 국가사이의 협상일 때 특히 그러하다. 그렇지만 국가들이 국가주권의 장벽을 걷어낼 필요성이 점점 커지고 있는 오늘날의 정치적, 경제적 그리고 기술적 압력들을 인식하게 되면서 이러한 태도는 서서히 그러나 명백히 변화하고 있다. 우주의 탐사 및 개발과 관련하여 증가하는 분쟁의 해결을 위한 효과적인 제도적 장치를 구축하는 작업은 국제기구나 개별국가뿐만 아니라 각국의 국제법 학자와 국제단체들에게 주어진 범세계적 연구과제라 할 것이다. 전술한 바 있는 1972년의 책임협약도 분쟁해결에 있어서 비교적 정교한 규정내용을 가진 우주관련 조약이긴 하지만 구속력 있는 결정을 확보하는 데는 실패했다. 이 조약의 채택이래로 강제적 관할권과 판정의 이행을 지지하는 압력단체가 출현하기도 했으며 특히 우주분쟁해결을 위한 분야별 국제적 메카니즘이 시급히 마련되어야 한다는 인식이 확산되었다. 이 점에서 1998년의 Taipei에서 채택된 분쟁해결을 위한 ILA의 협약 초안은 독립적인 분야별 우주분쟁해결 제도의 창설 여부에 대한 심도 있는 논의를 위해 의미가 큰 유용한 틀을 제공 하고 있다고 본다. 동 협약초안에 따르면 분쟁당사국 특히 우주선진국들이 구속적인 분쟁해결 절차를 꺼려한다는 사실을 고려하여 우주활동에 관한 분쟁을 선택적으로 해결하도록 할 수 있는 가능한 다양한 방법을 제시하고 있다는 점이 눈에 띈다. 즉, 당사자들은 이 협약을 서면, 비준, 가입할 때 동 협약의 해석이나 적용에 관한 분쟁을 해결하기 위하여 국제우주법재판소, 국제사법재판소 그리고 중재재판소 등 3가지 강제적 절차 중에서 하나 이상을 선택선언 할 수 있도록 하고 있는바 이것은 장차 우주활동에 따른 분쟁해결에 있어 커다란 시사점을 던져주는 것이기도 하다. 이제 국제우주법은 우주활동의 문제점과 복잡성을 조정할 수 있는 특성화된 분쟁해결체제의 요구로 국제우주법의 역사에 있어서 새로운 국면에 처해 있다. 아직은 우주선진국을 중심으로 구속적인 분쟁해결기구 창설에 반대하는 경향이 존재하는 것이 사실이지만 최근에 각 분야별로 국제법의 일반적인 준칙의 발전이 이루어져 가고 있고 해양법이나 형사법의 영역에서도 볼 수 있듯이 우주법 분야에 있어서도 점증하는 법적 분쟁의 해결을 위해 해양이용분야에 있어서의 해양법재판소 등을 참고하여 그에 준하는 효율적 분쟁해결기구의 탄생을 전향적으로 검토해야할 계제가 되었다는 점을 강조하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.197-227
• /
• 2009

This study describe the brief history and current statutes of Philippine arbitration. The practice of arbitration in the Philippines can be traced as far back as the barangay. From 1521, Spanish Civil Code became effective in the Philippines. During this period, the Supreme court was discouraged by the tendency of some courts to nullify arbitration clauses on the ground that the clauses ousted the judiciary of its jurisdiction. According to the growing need for a law regulating arbitration in general was acknowledged when Republic Act No.876(1953), otherwise known as the Arbitration Law, was passed. In 1958, the Philippines became a signatory to the New York Convention and in 1967 the said Convention was ratified. But no legislation has been passed. As a consequence, foreign arbitral awards have sometimes been deemed only presumptively valid, rather than conclusively valid. Fifty years after, the Philippine Congress enacted, Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise know as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. The enactment was the Philippines solution to making arbitration an efficient and effective method specially for international arbitration. To keep pace with the developments in international trade, ADR Act of 2004 also ensured that international commercial arbitration would be governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration and also fortified the use and purpose of the New York Convention by specifically mandating. If the international commercial arbitration will be revitalization in the near future in the Philippine, it will be shown that the model law's comprehensive provisions will give the beat framework for arbitration.. The writer expect that Philippines continues in its effort to be the premier site for international arbitration in Southeast Asia.