• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

Whether an investor can invoke a dispute settlement procedure stipulated in other BIT based on the MFN clause in the original BIT is an important issue. There is a difference in the interpretation of MFN clause in which the scope of the treatment stipulates the slightly different contents for each investment treaty. Therefore, this study considered ICSID arbitration cases related to the applicability of MFN clause for investment dispute settlement provisions. There are two different approaches for the applicability of MFN clause by arbitral tribunals. At first, the expanded interpretation of the MFN clause can be applied to procedural regulations, in that the purpose of the investment treaty is to protect foreign investors and to ensure their status. So, foreign investors can invoke a BIT of a third country that is advantageous to them. Second, the limited interpretation of the MFN clause can not be applied to procedural regulations. Without explicit regulation, the term treatment can not be considered to include dispute resolution provisions. And the BIT that the host state has concluded with third country is a treaty that applies only to the contracting party, so it can not be used by foreign investors of other nationality. Therefore, this study suggests concretely stipulating the scope of MFN clause under the investment treaty, highlighting that certain restrictions should be applied to the MFN clause. Furthermore, it is required continually investigating and analyzing the database of the scope of MFN clause.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• 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.28 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2018

This article examines whether parties may agree to contractually waive the right to bring annulment proceedings. Alternately it looks at whether certain grounds of annulment may be waived. The ability for parties to resolve this issue contractually by waiving this element of Article 52(1)(b) ICSID offers a potentially powerful solution. For parties to agree beforehand to the circumstances where tribunals have not 'manifestly exceeded their power' could allow them to remove the unpredictability of annulment on this foundation. Even in the event that an ad hoc committee is against the validity of waiver, it may be possible for a party to frame this restriction as an interpretative agreement by the parties rather than strictly as waiver of a ground of annulment. Ultimately, the wish to enter into such an agreement would likely only be driven by a few exceptional commercial need or prior negative experience with the remedy of annulment. In that cases, and depending on the nature of the specific concern with annulment, a limited waiver or interpretative agreement on certain Article 52(1) ICSID grounds may certainly be appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.71-89
• /
• 2019

When the host states do not comply with the investor-state arbitral awards voluntarily, it is difficult for the successful claimants to seek the enforcement of arbitral awards against the host state because of the doctrine of state immunity. This raises a question whether the investors might be able to seize the assets of the state-owned enterprises, as well as those of the host states. The investors might consider the properties held by state-owned enterprises as an attractive target especially when it has been established that the host state is responsible for the act of its state-owned enterprise. In such case, the investor might argue that the close relationship between the state-owned enterprise and the host state has already been recognized so that the commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise could be subject to attachment. On the other hand, the host state might argue that the state-owned entity exists separately from the state, and thus its assets cannot be equated with those of the host state. Moreover, even if this argument is not accepted and, as a result, the properties of the state-owned entity is equated with those of the host state, the host state might still be able to argue that non-commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise are immune from execution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.61-88
• /
• 2018

Myanmar has witnessed rapid economic growth in the 21st century. The cultural heritage of Myanmar (Burma) inherited from ancestors is law literature such as Dhammathat and Rajathat. Burma is a unique country in Southeast Asia in a sense that it already had a modern law system. For example, there has been a legal profession even in 12th century AD. According to Rajathat, lawyers were required to wear a uniform in court. Furthermore, lawyers and Judges participated in legal proceedings from the 15th century. As to the role of Dhammathat, there are conflicting views in the academic community. According to Professor Andrew Huxley, the profound literatures of Dhammathat had played an important role as a source of law in Burmese court in ancient times. Dhammathats have flourished in the struggle among the King, lawyers, and monks in old Burmese society. This customary law combined with Rajathat provided a guidance of legal proceedings in Burmese court, as well as village settlement. This traditional dispute resolution system reaches modern times in the form of Buddhist family law in Myanmar. Nowadays, the law system of Myanmar looks like a legal pluralism since the customary laws of Burma, as well as Shan and Arakan, are effective and co-exist with common law adopted at the colonial period. In recent times, Myanmar has enacted new arbitration laws (2016) in order to attract foreign direct investment.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.95-107
• /
• 2019

The ICSID arbitral tribunal shall determine the suitability of investors in accordance with the Article 25 of the ICSID convention and the investment or investor's provisions under the BIT. The eligibility of investors has an important role in establishing jurisdiction under international investment disputes. Therefore, this study draws implications on issues related to investor qualification, focusing on ICSID arbitration. The investor's nationality shall be taken into consideration in determining whether the investor is eligible. The criteria for determining the nationality of a corporate investor include the place of incorporation, main business location, and substantial ownership or control. The criterion of the place of incorporation that is used in a number of BIT have the problem of protecting investors from third countries not involved in the BIT. So, in recent years it is stipulated that the actual economic activity or the main business location as well as the place of incorporation criteria. And this problem is complemented by the denial of benefit clause. When determining whether a local corporation is controlled by foreigner in the host state it considers the shareholding rate, voting rights, and the exercise of managerial rights. There is a tendency to recognize shareholder's right to petition. Thus the same damage should not cause problems such as duplicate repayment or double reimbursement between the shareholders and the company. Unexpected problems can arise if the scope of investments and investors is broadly specified in the BIT. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the scope of investment to be protected.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2008

Northeast Asia is increasingly making a transition to distinctive and crucial region in the 21st Century and growing into one of world's top three economic spheres along with the EU and NAFTA. In 2003, Korean government announced the Northeast Asian economic hub country plan as an important agenda. As a means of coping with the changing global environment, Korean government designated Incheon in 2003 as the country's first Free Economic Zone ahead of Busan and Gwangyang Bay in the south of the country because Incheon has a geographical advantage linking North America and Europe with Incheon International Airport and Incheon Seaport. The purpose of this paper is to make research on establishment and operation of an arbitral body entitled ${\ulcorner}International Arbitration Center{\lrcorner}$ (IAC) within Incheon Free Economic Zone(IFEZ). For the purpose of this, the writer in this paper, reviewed the necessity of the IAC's establishment and its legal basis as well as the role and function of the Center. Also, the writer presented plans for how to operate the IAC and how to cooperate with the key arbitral organizations of foreign countries for the settlement promotion of commercial disputes including trade and investment. With development of the IFEZ, world-renowned enterprises will invest in the Incheon economic bloc and conduct economic activities, business operation, marketing, logistics, financing, etc. In this connection, diverse types of commercial disputes are expected to occur between foreign companies entering the IFEZ and Korean firms. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) has been operating its liaison office in the IFEZ since 2004. However, in view of the increasing arbitration demand, the IAC should be set up in the IFEZ in the near future by the positive support of the government in the respect of both administration and finance because the free economic zone-related law provides for the installation of arbitration organization. For the success of the IAC, the Center will have to provide not only good quality of arbitral services that can satisfy arbitration parties but also need to conduct researches and make efforts so that arbitration can be utilized well in the IFEZ. If the IFEZ can provide advantageous business environments to those multinational enterprises intending to the Incheon economic bloc, the IAC will also contribute to the settlement of commercial disputes arising from the Gaeseong Industrial Complex in North Korea in view of the geographical advantage and logistic benefit of the IFEZ. Finally, this paper also suggests a new model for a joint dispute resolution system by the initiative of Korean government and Korean arbitral organizations for the settlement of commercial disputes within Northeast Asia, for which the CAMCA(Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas) of NAFTA can be a good example.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

On 9 March 2017, a Tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention issued its ruling in the case of Ansung Housing v. People's Republic of China, dismissing with prejudice all claims made by the Claimant, Ansung Housing Co., Ltd., in its Request for Arbitration, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5). Ansung Housing v. PRC has drawn attention since it is the first case where an investor with Korean nationality initiated an ICSID arbitration on the basis of the Korea-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) as amended in 2007 between the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China. The Tribunal finds that its ruling is about a lack of jurisdiction of the ICSID and of its own competence as well as regarding manifest lack of legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction, since a Respondent's Rule 41(5) objection is concerned with the three-year limitation period in Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT. The Tribunal held that, under Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT, the limitation period begins with an investor's first knowledge of the fact that it has incurred loss or damage, not with the date on which it gains knowledge of the quantum of that loss or damage. Finally, the Tribunal held that Ansung submitted its dispute to ICSID and made its claim for purposes of Article 9(3) and (7) of the BIT after more than three years had elapsed from the date on which Ansung first acquired knowledge of loss or damage and that the claim is time-barred and, as such, is manifestly without legal merit. It remains to be seen whether the aggrieved Claimant initiates annulment proceedings before an ad hoc committee under the ICSID Convention. It is quite interesting to see whether the decisions by the Tribunal should be reversed on the basis of the Claimant's arguments as to the start date as well as the end date of the limitation period under the Korea-China BIT.