• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.55-83
• /
• 2022

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Mediation Convention) results in new challenges to the area of international dispute resolution by providing the enforcement regime for mediated settlement agreements, which have not been admitted as enforceable in some civil law countries, including Korea and Japan. Japan has struggled to promote international arbitration and international mediation, and such efforts were accelerated by the adoption of the Singapore Mediation Convention in 2018. In order to standardize arbitration proceedings and promote the practice of international arbitration, Japan produced two noticeable results: the new JCAA Arbitration Rules and the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan. In addition to that Expedited arbitration procedure and Interactive Arbitration Rules of JCAA present the new possibility of international arbitration procedure for civil law practitioners, the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan suggests significant implications to Korea for its manifest provisions regarding enforcement requirements and proceedings and its protection of Access to Justice for foreign law practitioners.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2012

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act in Japan was proclaimed on December 1, 2004, and five years have passed since the act took effect on April 1, 2007. The ADR Act enables qualified dispute resolution businesses to be certified as ADR business holders through the government's accreditation system, contributing greatly to the advancement of a private ADR. As of June 2012, the number of ADR institutes certified by the government had increased to 112. Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of Japan's ADR Act provides as follows: "The government should review the progress of the Act five years after enforcement, and take measures, if recognized as necessary, based on the results." Any problems revealed in the process of implementing the act are expected to be revised after five years of enforcement. To this end, the academic circle established an association called the Arbitration ADR Act Society in 2004, considering issues of the ADR Act and measures to improve the legislation, making policy suggestions, and working to improve management of the act, through seminars, forums, and a journal. The Japanese ADR Association, composed of ADR institutions as members, put forward a proposal entitled "Toward the Revision of the ADR Act" to the Ministry of Justice on April 2, 2012. This paper intends to identify the current state of the accreditation system, one of the most important systems under the ADR Act in Japan, in consideration of ADR Act revision. In particular, the examination includes measures to improve the accreditation system as well as data analysis of the application of accreditation, the current state of accredited institutions, and the ADR performance of accredited ADR businesses. In Korea, an ADR act has not been legislated yet, although the issue is being actively considered. This paper will be a meaningful reference for the Korean government in developing an accreditation system for inclusion in its ADR act in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.47-64
• /
• 2015

Pursuant to Article 109(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act of Korea, a person, not an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, articles, entertainment or other benefits or who gives or promises to give those things to a third party, in compensation for providing or mediating legal services, such as examination, representation, arbitration(emphasis added), settlement, solicitation, legal consultation, making of legal documents, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million or may be punished by both and there is no specific provision on qualification of arbitrator except on nationality of an arbitrator in the Arbitration Act of Korea. Then, the question arises, can any non-lawyer arbitrator who receives arbitrator's fees be punished in accordance with the Attorney-at-Law Act in Korea? To search for an answer for this matter, this paper examines the Arbitration Act or the Civil Procedure Code of 33 major countries in the world and explains a research on the participation ratio of non-lawyer arbitrators in all 360 arbitration cases registered in 2012 at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.133-159
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews 2019 new arbitration rules of Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). JCAA has amended its Commercial Arbitration Rules, and its Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration. Also, it has introduced a new Interactive Arbitrations Rules. These new rules take effect from 1 January 2019. First, principal amendments of JCAA Commercial Arbitration Rules are such as arbitrator impartiality, tribunal secretaries, no dissenting opinions, expedited proceedings, arbitrator fees, administrative fees. Second, JCAA's new Interactive Arbitration Rules compel communication from the arbitral tribunal to the Parties and introduce a system of fixed compensation for arbitrators. Third, JCAA's Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration are designed to provide the minimum essentials to allow the UNCITRAL Rules to be overseen by an institution. The only significant updates focus on arbitrator remuneration. This paper presents the intent and some implications of JACC's 2019 new rules for Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) arbitration rules. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and improvement on the facilitating of arbitration system in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2014

The Arbitration Act of Korea entered into force on December 31, 1999. It was modeled after the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law to meet the goal of the internationalization of the arbitration system of South Korea mainly in terms of the System (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Act. In general, a hearing of arbitration is made up of an arbitrator, claimant, and respondent. This is accomplished in a single core. The advantages of arbitration are low cost and confidentiality. In addition, there is the participation of experts and rapidity with a single core agent. However, under the current Arbitration Act, there is no provision expressly relating to the qualifications of arbitrators. This should be accomplished by the arbitration act enforcement ordinance. Following specific details of the 'party' in conjunction with all the provisions of the Arbitration Act, Article 1 should be revised in a timely manner so that "conflict of private law" covers cases in which a dispute between the parties is desirable. In addition, in Article 3 the phrasing of "also dispute 'judicial'" should be revised to over disputes between parties. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 40 are described in the Supplement and so it is preferable to address Supplementary Delete. In addition, this study will analyze ADR in Japan and present a plan to establish a law to resolve disputes outside of court in that country. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assist in the study of legislating fundamental law for alternative dispute resolution. In spite of this, there are many in business and academia who would like to modify the arbitration system in South Korea to improve its function. There is much interest in accomplishing this,so proposals for legislation should continue to be made.In order to accomplish this, the arbitration systems of developed countries such as the United States can be used as a model. It can be seen that despite the idea that the parties involved engage in arbitration autonomously, many elements of the process from the selection of the arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal are specified in legislation and thus it is necessary to develop legislation that will allow arbitration to perform its intended function. Any given arbitral tribunal can be specialized, typically in a case an arbitrator who is an expert in the field is selected. This helps to avoid complaints concerning the results of the arbitration. In the case of international arbitration, however, this provision is often not employed and instead it is necessary to provide a Schedule and Supplement concerning international arbitration. Finally, the promotion of the enactment of the Arbitration Law Enforcement Ordinance must be a top priority in order to ensure proper implementation of the arbitration law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2010

In the past, ADR has not been used as frequently in Japan as it has in other parts of the industrialized world. However, though litigation is still the most utilized vehicle of dispute resolution by Japanese financial institutions, this will be changing. The New Financial ADR system, which was created by a June 2009 amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, is meant to deal with every stage of financial-related disputes and, as such, strives to resolve disputes before they become significant and acts to ameliorate any post-ADR issues that may remain, thereby completing the FIEA's purpose to protect investors. Since the foundation of the New Financial ADR system applies to all related industries, new provisions were set out in 16 business related acts, such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, and FIEA itself. October 2010 will mark the formal introduction of a new system of financial ADR in Japan. New Financial ADR in Japan will be modeled on the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom, but will not feature one comprehensive dispute resolution system in which one dispute resolution institution covers all disputes in the financial field. The New Financial ADR system is merely one step towards a foundation of comprehensive financial ADR such as FOS. It must be noted, however, that this all important first step was over seven years in the making, involving a great deal of discussion, debate, and compromise amongst many parts of Japanese government, business, and society. The New Financial ADR system grants participating parties the ability to stop the clock on any statute of limitations which may correspond to any future possible court cases related to the dispute,13 and further grants the ability to suspend related court proceedings while the parties are utilizing the New Financial ADR system. In addition, where financial institutions have not accepted dispute resolution proceedings or have not accepted a special conciliation proposal, the Ministry of Finance may issue an order compelling compliance if it is found that certain actions are necessary to ensure the appropriate operations of a financial institution's business. In Japan, as best practices have not yet been created.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.245-283
• /
• 2003

Since enactment of the Product Liability Act(PLA) on July 2002, Enterprises in Korea should be insured the Product Liability under the Act. Therefore they had to make a special team and organize it to match with the Act. However, some enterprises didn't follow and prepare the team for the dispute resolution. For example, in America, many enterprises had been attacked the PLA and in Japan, as well. but Korea is rare for the PLA. Thus, this is to research the PLA for protecting the disputes. Upon this study, 1 would like to suggest some issues and a revision of the PLA. Those are the purpose of my research. In this study, it consists of 5 chapters for achieving the purpose of the research. Introduction of this study is mentioned in Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 is for outline of the PLA in Korea. At Chapter 3, the cases are analyzed in the disputes of importers to address important things we have to check. After the analysis, resolution methods in general on import practices are suggested at Chapter 4. Also, this study is summarized at Chapter 5 including further research. In this research, 1 find out complex of Product Liability insurance and issues related with PLA. For protecting the issues and disputes; importers should prepare a agreement of arbitration during the preparation of contracts. Nothing can be better than prevention on any disputes, but they can be happened sometimes without any intentions or by mistake. Solving these issues, the resolution methods of this research are the most valuable. The mediation and the negotiation do not force any legal matters. So, the dispute through them does not have a positive resolution, and the effectiveness of them is very low. Due to the resolution of issues, arbitration is a desirable resolution. In Korea, most people do not know about the arbitration due to the lack of understanding of arbitration. Currently arbitration related with Product Liability has not been followed up promptly because procedures and judgement from a court take for a long time. In sum, in order to solve the disputes properly, they should be supported by the arbitration system to concrete essential objectives, so to speak, protection of the victim and the improvement of arbitration. In addition, the systematic arrangements would be required to carry out all the methods above mentioned. Those are for manufacturers, importers, and customers for the dispute resolution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.127-160
• /
• 2006

Civil lawsuits have been the main instruments to resolve any civil disputes until recent times but it has its limitations in resolving all disputes in the specialized and technical disputes only according to the civil trial process. Therefore, many countries have carried out a series of discussions and investigations into the system of Alternate Dispute Resolution(ADR). It should especially be noted that all related countries in the world have enacted a basic ADR law to accelerate the usage of the ADR system. The most representative cases are the American Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 and Japan's Alternative Dispute Resolution Promotion Law set up in December 2004. As such, there is a need for Korea to enact a basic law regarding ADR following the world trend of major nations. This paper looks closely not only into the enactment circumstances and contents of Japan's ADR law whose legal system is similar to that of Korea but also the aftermath discussions of the Japanese academic circles into consideration, in the hopes of providing reference data for the legislation of the Korean ADR system and further aiding in the development of the ADR law theory.