• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.23 no.6
• /
• pp.14-32
• /
• 2019

Purpose - This study is designed to provide new insights on trade claim management by typifying trade claims from a relational perspective, which defines trade as an organic combination that exchanges relationships based on a mutual goal instead of conflicts between obligations and rights of the contracting parties. Design/methodology - This is a phenomenological study that aims to typify trade claims based on a relational perspective and extract implications for trade claim management. The research procedures of this study are as follows. First, international commercial dispute cases applying the CISG are collected. Second, the cases collected are quantified through content analysis. The variables for quantification are developed based on a relationship perspective. Third, cluster analysis is conducted on coded data to typify cases. And finally, this study compares the characteristics of each type using analysis of variance and suggests implications for the strategic management of trade claims from a relational perspective. Findings - Results show that trade claims are divided into four clusters, depending on whether flexibility is accepted or not and which party violates mutuality. There is also a difference between the claimant and the cause of the claim, according to the cluster. Based on the results, this study suggests that the buyer and the seller should employ different strategies depending on the type of trade claim and presents proposals for strategic claim management. Originality/value - Firstly, this study extends the theoretical discussion on trade claims by applying relational contract theory. Prior studies on trade claims have been primarily based on traditional contract theory. The second is to analyze trade claims quantitatively. Prior case studies on trade claims have mainly relied on qualitative research. Finally, the study contributes to international commercial practice by typifying trade claims and presenting options for strategic management.

• 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.25 no.4
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.457-479
• /
• 2013

Through a Chinese rise, Chinese dream is actualizing as the world's great power. According to outlook of World Bank and IMF, Around 2030 China will be a great power bigger than America's economic power. The rise of China will give a huge impact to the whole world. China expands her influence through a global manufacturing base and a global market. To actualize 'Peaceful Rise' Strategy, China has many constraints. Chinese society is facing many difficult social problem due to side effects of a rapid development. Such as the spread of corruption, the severity of wealth gap, environmental degradation and energy shortage. Internationally there are containment from hegemon so-called 'China threat' dispute, Taiwan issue and territorial disputes. Western countries are hostile to China for two reasons. Based on expectations, one is China's socialist system and the other is the rising China which will compete for supremacy with Europe and America. Recent emergence of Chinese nationalism and the containment of the neighboring countries are also serious limiting factors. Domestically they have the rampant corruption in the bureaucracy, weakened capacity of Communist rule, wealth disparity due to the discriminatory economic development strategy, seriousness of rural problem, social instability, lack of social security systems and the development gap between the eastern coastal areas and western inland areas, ethnic minorities problems, the constraint of sustainable development issues due to lack of resources, environmental pollution and energy constraints. Like the former Soviet Union, China may face a dismantlement. After the rise, China may encounter possibilities of a war between great powers or a collapse of Chinese society caused by deepening internal conflict. Serious economic polarization would make peasants and urban workers, who are social vulnerable people, to turn their back to communist party and threaten the justification and the appropriateness of the ruling communist party. Chinese government will think internal system security threat is more formidable risk factor than a system security threat from the hegemon. The decline of great country comes from internal reasons rather than external reasons. To achieve peaceful rise, unification with Taiwan is an essential prerequisite. Taiwan issues are complex problems which equipped with international and domestic factors. Lack of energy resources, environmental pollution in China will bring economic crisis to Korean enterprises. Important influence to Korean economy will be a changeover of the method in economic development. It will turn the balance of investment and consumption, GDP-centered growth to consumption and environment-centered growth. Services industries including finance, environment, culture, education, health care and social welfare will grow. Change in China's growth model will give a great challenge upon the intermediate goods industry in Korea. Korea should reduce the portion of machinery, automotive, semiconductor, steel and chemical-centered export industry to China, and should increase the proportion of the service industry.