• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.137-167
• /
• 2020

As arbitration is widely used as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, third-party funding, which is a person or entity with no prior interest in the legal dispute providing non-recourse financing for one of the parties, has become more prevalent with increasing costs of international arbitration. In particular, Hong Kong and Singapore are the first jurisdictions to adopt and implement legislations to specifically permit third-party funding of international arbitration. Thus, in this article, relevant issues with respect to third-party funding of arbitration, such as, conflicts of interest, disclosure, privilege and confidentiality of information, cost allocation, security for costs, and control over arbitral proceedings by the third-party funder are examined with pertinent provisions of the recent legislations. While the respective legislations of Hong Kong and Singapore may not directly address every issue raised by third-party funding of arbitration, as they make it clear that such is no longer prohibited by the old common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance, they have clarified conflicting case law as well as proactively promoted themselves as leading seats of international arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.67-94
• /
• 2020

This paper examines the current enforcement regime of Korea and provides an overview of the same with focus on the changes before and after the 2016 revision of the Korean Arbitration Act. It briefly studies the pro-arbitration bias of the New York Convention, as well as the Korean judiciary's stance on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Some of the substantial issues discussed in the paper include the major procedural changes brought about by the 2016 amendment with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards. The paper also discusses the rare instances where the Korean judiciary refused to recognize or enforce an arbitral award, and the reasoning behind the refusal. The paper discusses and analyzes four court judgments that reflect the Korean judiciary's position on the enforcement of foreign and domestic arbitral awards in Korea. It focuses on the NDS v. KT Skylife case, where the court of first instance refused the enforcement on grounds that the relief granted by the arbitral tribunal was not specific enough for enforcement. Ultimately, the appellate court, although agreeing on the specificity requirement, reversed the ruling and granted an enforcement judgment on grounds that the application for enforcement had the legal interest to request an enforcement judgment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2018

Due to the increasing number of foreign investments made by state-owned enterprises, there has been a growth in the number of investment arbitration claims submitted by them. However, international investment treaties including the ICSID Convention are intended to apply to investor-state disputes and according to Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the claimant has to be "a national of another Contracting State." This raises the question of whether state-owned companies can be considered as "nationals of another Contracting State" or private investors. This issue has been discussed in the ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction in BUCG v. Yemen which has been released in 2017. Since there would be more claims related to the standing of state-owned enterprises as claimants, it is required to understand whether state-owned enterprises could be permitted access to the ICSID under the ICSID Convention Article 25. Moreover, the ICSID cases addressing the jurisdictional issues including BUCG v. Yemen has to be closely analyzed. In particular, as the Broches test was applied in order to decide the standing of state-owned companies, it is necessary to examine how the Broches criteria has been interpreted and adopted in the ICSID cases.

• 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.28 no.1
• /
• pp.99-123
• /
• 2018

Korean businesses engaging in transactions with U.S. entities are increasingly favoring arbitration clauses to address unexpected disputes. How best ought the parties' arbitration contractual terms be drafted to avoid lengthy, protracted and expensive legal disputes? Authors examine the public policy favoring arbitration through the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. Korean litigants seeking a "Motion to Compel Arbitration" rely on arbitration clauses designed to address four factors U.S. courts use to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration contract clauses. What role does U.S. state court jurisdiction hinder or help Korean businesses contracting with U.S. business entities located within certain boundaries? What is the effect of an arbitration clause that designates the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul to arbitrate? All cases analyzed entail Korean business entities. Eleven cases demonstrate the results of seeking motions to compel arbitration in U.S. courts. Three cases illustrate motions to compel arbitration drafted to use the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul. The results provide Korean businesses and legal practitioners insight into addressing the specific goals of including contractual arbitration clauses to enhance their international commercial interests in the United States.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to take a countermeasure of the investment treaty arbitration that Lone Star claimed to the Korean government. In particular, this study suggests procedural measures to be prepared by the Korean government after the arbitration award. The actual remedy in ICSID arbitration is the annulment procedure of arbitration award. Therefore, this study analyzed the measures that the Korean government can prepare based on the annulment grounds: the inadequacy of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the excessive power of the arbitrator, the corruption of the arbitrator, and the serious violation of the rules. First, the Korean government should decide whether to proceed with the annulment procedure after the arbitration award. Second, if they decide to do it, they should review the grounds of annulment. For example, it is possible to analyze whether the relationship between the arbitrator and Lone Star can be properly in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, whether Lone Star is eligible to apply for ICSID arbitration, or whether arbitration tribunal ignores the crucial evidence that can affect the arbitration award. Independently, the Korean government needs to discuss the investment arbitration appeal system in a long-term perspective.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.35-60
• /
• 2017

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings: Arbitration is generally faster and more inexpensive (cheaper) than litigation in court. The Republic of Korea enacted the "Arbitration Industry Promotion Act" to develop arbitration. This law provides for the establishment and operation of arbitration institutions, training of arbitration experts, and support of arbitration studies and international exchanges. Effective operation of an arbitration institution has an important influence on the development of arbitration. Neutral and good arbitration experts improve the authority of arbitration. The academic study of arbitration theoretically develops the arbitration procedure. In addition, this paper referred to some additional factors that South Korea should have in order to become an attractive place of arbitration. Neutrality and fairness of the court of arbitration are highly important factors in arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration institution should be operated independently and clearly from the government to ensure neutrality and fairness. The parties of arbitration should also be free and able to defend their interests sufficiently in the arbitration proceedings. Lastly, coordination between this law and other laws is necessary.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.115-131
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to consider key issues and to categorize international arbitrations on industrial significance. Thus this study focused on synthesizing industrial significance, retaining international competitiveness, and securing national implications of international arbitration as a legal service trade system. To obtain these goals, the liberalization of international arbitration proxy service, invitation of international arbitration board regional offices such as PCA to AAA-ICDR, and drawing of international mediation institutions to invigorate the legal service market should be exerted. To revitalize the international arbitration, it would be renounced the control rights of economy-related disputes with internationalism while policies should be improved to enhance the execution of arbitration agreements and awards. It is emphasized the necessities of the process through the institutional mediation agency to resolve more court mediation and international dispute cases, and to handle international arbitration cases after training professional legal experience through cooperation with international arbitration boards such as LCIA, ICC, AAA, and PCA. Ultimately, to revitalize the international arbitration, the industrial significance of arbitration should be analyzed and the critical industrial influence of arbitration such as in the semiconductor, petrochemistry, and ICT sectors should be expanded to gain the competitiveness of the global legal service market with the assistance of institutional complementary measures.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2017

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (The Guidelines) was initially promulgated in 1976 as a form of annex to the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises. The Guidelines aims at accomplishing the implementation and dissemination of the Responsible Business Conduct. The latest version of The Guidelines, as revised in 2011, directed 47 adhering countries to The Guidelines to set up their respective National Contact Points (NCPs). NCPs are The Guidelines' dispute resolution mechanism for specific instances arising from breach by multinational enterprises of The Guidelines. Korea to date has its own NCP performing its role to offer good offices and facilitates settlement between the parties to the specific instances regarding The Guidelines. However, there has been strong criticism from NGOs and civil society that Korea NCP has not performed well due to lack of transparency and impartiality, especially in the context of the governance of Korea NCP. Under this circumstance, this paper ⅰ) examines current status and problems of Korea NCP, ⅱ) evaluates the core criteria for function and governance of NCPs through a comparative overseas cases study, and ⅲ) suggests improvement plans for Korea NCP.