• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제29권
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2006

The governing law in international commercial arbitration may be divided into governing arbitration law and governing substantive law. The former governs the parties' arbitration agreement and the conduct of any subsequent arbitration. But the later governs the parties' substantive rights and obligations, which means the law that governs contract formation and performance, and the law to be applied by the arbitrator to the merits of the dispute. The purpose of this paper is to examine how to determine the substantive governing law when there is express choice or implied choice between parties. Moreover this author checked any restrictions on party autonomy and also any possibilities to deviate from the governing law. In case of express choice the sources of the law or rules of law might be the national law of one of the parties, the neutral law, the general principles of law or lex mercatoria according to the arbitration law selected by the arbitral tribunal. Some arbitration laws or rules empower the arbitrator to decide the case ex aequo et bono or to act as amiable compositions. If the governing law could be determined expressly or impliedly by the parties, the arbitral tribunal would make a selection. In this case the criteria for selecting a governing law are not exactly same from country to country. But failing any indication by the parties as to governing law, the arbitral tribunal should apply the rules of law, the law or the law under the rule of conflict that the arbitrators consider applicable, according to the governing arbitration law. Among the connecting factors offered by the conflict rules, (which means the factors that the arbitrators consider applicable), some legal systems give precedence to the formation of the contract, other system to the place of performance of the contract, and others to the closest connection or centre of gravity. But the Rome Convention, which unified the conflict rules of the contracting states, gives precedence to the law of the domicile of the party which has to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract. Finally this author suggested the Choice of Law Clause which covers governing substantive law and governing arbitration law at the same time. Thus the UNIDROIT Principles as well as any national law may be included as a governing law in international arbitration. So when we make sales or service contract, we should take into consideration of the UNIDROIT Principles as a governing law or a supplement to the governing law.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제35권3호
• /
• pp.151-208
• /
• 2020

본 논문에서는 2016년 일본 우주활동법상의 인공위성 등의 발사 규제와 인공위성의 관리 규제를 중심으로, 구체적인 입법 구조와 주요 내용들을 분석해 보았다. 나아가 관련 논점들을 상정하여, 우리 법제상의 시사점에 대한 개별적 의견을 검토해 보았다. 지금까지 일본은 기술 수준과 정부의 재정 지원에 비해, 우주입법 분야의 구축이 다소 뒤쳐져 있다는 평가를 받고 있었다. 그러나 2000년대 후반부터 진행된 일련의 우주법 제정 성과들을 통해, 우주산업과 관련한 인적·물적·제도적 인프라들을 구조적으로 갖추게 되었다. 특히 2016년에 제정된 일본의 우주활동법은 인공위성 등의 발사허가, 인공위성의 관리허가, 로켓·인공위성 사고에 따른 손해배상책임을 종합적으로 규율하여, 위성발사와 같은 특정 우주활동에 대한 일원적 규제 체제를 확립하였다. 우리나라는 현재 2005년의 우주개발진흥법과 2007년의 우주손해배상법만이 입법되어 있고, 그 이후 별다른 우주입법이 이루어지지 않았다. 문제는 우리나라 역시 수차례에 걸쳐 인공위성 발사를 성공시킨 위성발사 강국임에도 인공위성의 발사·관리에 관한 개별 우주법이 아직 없다는 점이다. 우주개발진흥법은 우주발사체의 발사허가, 우주물체 등록, 우주사고 손해배상책임 등 특정 우주활동의 실체 규정들을 다수 포함하고 있기는 하나, 어디까지나 전반적인 우주활동에 관한 기본법적 특성을 지니고 있으므로, 인공위성 발사·관리의 총체적인 규율체계로서는 한계가 있다. 따라서 우리나라도 일본 우주활동법과 같은 특별법을 제정하여, 인공위성의 발사 및 관리 규제를 효율적·일체적으로 도모하는 한편, 우주활동의 상업적 주체들에게는 법적 예측가능성을 부여해 주어야 한다. 우주개발과 우주산업 육성을 위한 제도로서, 동시에 'New Lex Mercatoria'로서의 개별적 우주입법이 필요한 시기라고 생각한다.