• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

Civil and commercial disputes can be resolved through alternative dispute settlement systems other than court proceedings. Among them, the arbitration procedure is a system that is clearly distinguished from the mediation procedure in which the dispute is terminated by agreement between the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall have the same effect as the result of the final judgment by the decision of a third-party arbitrator, and its essence is a judgment. The Korean Arbitration Association Studies was founded in December 1990 to recognize the importance of arbitration procedures and conduct specialized research on them, with professional research on 'arbitration procedures' continuing until today. Thus, the Korean Arbitration Association Studies is positioned as the only specialized research organization in the field of arbitration. In the case of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies, which is the only society in Korea related to arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, the members are mainly scholars majoring in trade and commerce and ones majoring in law. This situation reflects the distinctive character of the arbitration system because it is a matter of dispute procedures related to trade and commerce and many scholars who research trade and commerce need to prepare for possible disputes. In addition, the arbitration procedure is a dispute settlement procedure that substitutes for litigation because it has research value as a legal system. In particular, the 'Journal of Arbitration Studies' published by the Korean Arbitration Association plays a role in mediation, as well as mediation and presentation of research papers in the ADR field. This study analyzes the trends of mediation and ADR-related papers published in 'Journal of Arbitration Studies', an academic journal of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies, in four dimensions, celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies. First, this study examined which sub-themes are mainly studied among the various viewpoints of mediation through thematic analysis. Second, it looked at what methodology was used to study intervention at the methodological level. Third, it assessed what countries and regions had been mainly studied at the regional level. Fourth, in terms of content, what kind of research had been mainly conducted and what kind of research was relatively insufficient was investigated, analyzing the research results of the last 30 years and presenting a milestone for the research direction of 'Journal of Arbitration Studies' in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.37-67
• /
• 2023

Arbitration is a just and efficient method for resolving economic disputes. It adapts to the needs of economic development and is an important institution in today's society. Around the world, a tradition of resolving disputes through arbitration spontaneously developed in ancient times and gradually evolved into a legal system with the development of jurisprudence starting from the Middle Ages. In China, formal legislation on arbitration began in the modern era during the Republic of China period. However, the origins of arbitration as a method for resolving disputes can be traced back to ancient times, during the Qin and Han dynasties. The most significant modern arbitration legislation in China is the "Arbitration Law" enacted in 1995, which drew on the experiences of foreign arbitration laws. Despite this, there are still many areas in arbitration legislation that require improvement based on practical experiences. Currently, revisions to the Arbitration Law are underway, and historical experiences may offer valuable insights, assisting in better integrating the Arbitration Law with Chinese society. This article primarily focuses on the role and impact of the imported modern commercial arbitration system in China and how it can be harmonized with China's legal culture in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2020

The Scope of Application of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and Foreign Investment Act This article examines whether the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and the Foreign Investment Act of North Korea apply to South Korean parties or companies. This article analyzes laws and agreements related to economic cooperation between South Korea and North Korea. Furthermore, this article compares and evaluates laws related to foreign investment and enacted in North Korea. Now, North Korea's door is closed due to economic sanctions against it, but it will be opened soon. Thus, this article prepares for the future opening of North Korea's markets. Is there a rule of laws in North Korea or just a ruler? Are there laws in North Korea? North Korea has enacted a number of legislation to attract foreign investors, referring to those Chinese laws. For example, North Korea enacted the Foreigner Investment Act, the Foreigner Company Act, the Foreign Investment Bank Act, the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, the Foreign Economic Contract Act, the International Trade Act, and the Free Economy and Trade Zone Act, among others. Article 2 (2) of the Foreign Investment Law of North Korea states, "Foreign investors are corporations and individuals from other countries investing in our country." It is interpreted that South Korea is not included in the "other countries" of this definition. According to many mutual agreements signed by South Korea and North Korea, the relationship between the two Koreas is a special relation inside the Korean ethnic group. An arbitration between a South Korean party and a North Korean party has the characteristics of both domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. If the South Korea and North Korea Commercial Arbitration Commission or the Kaesong Industrial Complex Arbitration Commission is not established, the possibility of arbitration by the Chosun International Trade Arbitration Commission, established under North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, should be examined. There have been no cases where the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act is applied to disputes between parties of South Korea and North Korea. It might be possible to apply the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act by recognizing the "foreign factor" of a dispute between the South Korean party and North Korean party. It is necessary to raise legislative clarifications by revising the North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act as to whether Korean parties or companies are included in the scope of this Act's application. Even if it is interpreted that South Korean parties or companies are not included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, disputes between South Korean companies and North Korean companies can be resolved by foreign arbitration institutes such as CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong, or SIAC in Singapore. Such arbitration awards could be enforced in North Korea pursuant to Article 64 of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. This is because the arbitration awards of foreign arbitration institutes are included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. The matter is how to enforce the North Korean laws when a North Korean party or North Korean government does not abide by the laws or their contracts. It is essential for North Korea to join the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

The emergence of a multi-door courthouse is related with a couple of reasons as follows: First, a multi-door courthouse was originally initiated by the United States government that increasingly became impatient with the pace and cost of protracted litigation clogging the courts. Second, dockets of courts are overcrowded with legal suits, making it difficult for judges to handle those legal suits in time and causing delays in responding to citizens' complaints. Third, litigation is not suitable for the disputant that has an ongoing relationship with the other party. In this case, even if winning is achieved in the short run, it may not be all that was hoped for in the long run. Fourth, international organizations such as the World Bank, UNDP, and Asia Development Bank urge to provide an increased access to women, residents, and the poor in local communities. The generic model of a multi-door courthouse consists of three stages: The first stage includes a center offering intake services, along with an array of dispute resolution services under one roof. At the second stage, the screening unit at the center would diagnose citizen disputes, then refer the disputants to the appropriate door for handling the case. At the third stage, the multi-door courthouse provides diverse kinds of dispute resolution programs such as mediation, arbitration, mediation-arbitration (med-arb), litigation, and early neutral evaluation. This study suggests the extended model of multi-door courthouse comprised of five layers: intake process, diagnosis and door-selection process, neutral-selection process, implementation process of dispute resolution, and process of training and education. One of the major characteristics of extended multi-door courthouse model is the detailed specification of individual department corresponding to each process within a multi-door courthouse. The intake department takes care of the intake process. The screening department plays the role of screening disputes, diagnosing the nature of disputes, and determining a suitable door to handle disputes. The human resources department manages experts through the construction and management of the data base of mediators, arbitrators, and judges. The administration bureau manages the implementation of each process of dispute resolution. The education and training department builds long-term planning to procure neutrals and experts dealing with various kinds of disputes within a multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, it is necessary to establish networks among courts, law schools, and associations of scholars in order to facilitate the supply of manpower in ADR neutrals, as well as judges in the long run. This study also provides six case studies of multi-door courthouses across continents in order to grasp the worldwide picture and wide spread phenomena of multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, the United States and Latin American countries including Argentina and Brazil, Middle Eastern countries, and Southeast Asian countries (such as Malaysia and Myanmar), Australia, and Nigeria were chosen. It was found that three kinds of patterns are discernible during the evolution of a multi-door courthouse model. First, the federal courts of the United States, land and environment court in Australia, and Lagos multi-door courthouse in Nigeria may maintain the prototype of a multi-door courthouse model. Second, the judicial systems in Latin American countries tend to show heterogenous patterns in terms of the adaptation of a multi-door courthouse model to their own environments. Some court systems of Latin American countries including those of Argentina and Brazil resemble the generic model of a multi-door courthouse, while other countries show their distinctive pattern of judicial system and ADR systems. Third, it was found that legal pluralism is prevalent in Middle Eastern countries and Southeast Asian countries. For example, Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia have developed various kinds of dispute resolution methods, such as sulh (mediation), tahkim (arbitration), and med-arb for many centuries, since they have been situated at the state of tribe or clan instead of nation. Accordingly, they have no unified code within the territory. In case of Southeast Asian countries such as Myanmar and Malaysia, they have preserved a strong tradition of customary laws such as Dhammthat in Burma, and Shriah and the Islamic law in Malaysia for a long time. On the other hand, they incorporated a common law system into a secular judicial system in Myanmar and Malaysia during the colonial period. Finally, this article proposes a couple of factors to strengthen or weaken a multi-door courthouse model. The first factor to strengthen a multi-door courthouse model is the maintenance of flexibility and core value of alternative dispute resolution. We also find that fund raising is important to build and maintain the multi-door courthouse model, reflecting the fact that there has been a competition surrounding the allocation of funds within the judicial system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.239-282
• /
• 2019

The importance of ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution), which has the advantage of expertise, speed and neutrality due to the increase of arbitration cases due to domestic and foreign construction disputes, has emerged. Therefore, in order for the nation's arbitration system and the arbitration Organization to jump into the ranks of advanced international mediators, it is necessary to research the characteristics and advantages of these arbitration Organization through a study of prior domestic and foreign research and operation of international arbitration Organization. As a problem, First, education for the efficient promotion of arbitrators (compulsory education, maintenance education, specialized education, seminars, etc.). second, The effectiveness of arbitration in resolving construction disputes (hearing methods, composition of the tribunal, and speed). third, The issue of flexibility and diversity of arbitration solutions (the real problem of methodologies such as mediation and arbitration) needs to be drawn on the Arbitration laws and practical problems, such as laws, rules and guidelines. Therefore, Identify the problems presented in the preceding literature and diagnosis of the defects and problems of the KCAB by drawing features and benefits from the arbitration system operated by the international arbitration Institution. As an improvement, the results of an empirical analysis are derived for "arbitrator" simultaneously through a recognition survey. As a method of improvement, First, as an optimal combination of arbitration hearing and judgment in the settlement of construction disputes,(to improve speed). (1) A plan to improve the composition of the audit department according to the complexity, specificity, and magnification of the arbitration cases - (1)Methods to cope with the increased role of the non-lawyer(Specialist, technical expert). (2)Securing technical mediators for each specialized expert according to the large and special corporation arbitration cases. (2) Improving the method of writing by area of the arbitration guidelines, second, Introduction of the intensive hearing system for psychological efficiency and the institutional improvement plan (1) Problems of optimizing the arbitration decision hearing procedure and resolution of arbitration, and (2) Problems of the management of technical arbitrators of arbitration tribunals. (1)A plan to expand hearing work of technical arbitrator(Review on the introduction of the Assistant System as a member of the arbitration tribunals). (2)Improved use of alternative appraisers by tribunals(cost analysis and utilization of the specialized institution for calculating construction costs), Direct management of technical arbitrators : A Study on the Improvement of the Assessment Reliability of the Appraisal and the Appraisal Period. third, Improvement of expert committee system and new method, (1) Creating a non-executive technical committee : Special technology affairs, etc.(Major, supports pre-qualification of special events and coordinating work between parties). (2) Expanding the standing committee.(Added expert technicians : important, special, large affairs / pre-consultations, pre-coordination and mediation-arbitration). This has been shown to be an improvement. In addition, institutional differentiation to enhance the flexibility and diversity of arbitration. In addition, as an institutional differentiation to enhance the flexibility and diversity of arbitration, First, The options for "Med-Arb", "Arb-Med" and "Arb-Med-Arb" are selected. second, By revising the Agreement Act [Article 28, 2 (Agreement on Dispute Resolution)], which is to be amended by the National Parties, the revision of the arbitration settlement clause under the Act, to expand the method to resolve arbitration. third, 2017.6.28. Measures to strengthen the status role and activities of expert technical arbitrators under enforcement, such as the Act on Promotion of Interestments Industry and the Information of Enforcement Decree. Fourth, a measure to increase the role of expert technical Arbitrators by enacting laws on the promotion of the arbitration industry is needed. Especially, the establishment of the Act on Promotion of Intermediation Industry should be established as an international arbitration agency for the arbitration system. Therefore, it proposes a study of improvement and differentiation measures in the details and a policy, legal and institutional improvement and legislation.