• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.35-63
• /
• 2019

Since imposing Performance Requirements (PRs) on investors have been conducted as a means to protect a host state's domestic industry in the short run, with its effect on improving the international balance of payments, it has been implemented mostly in developing countries. From the viewpoint of investors, however, PRs hinder free competition and investment activities and have the effect of distorting international trade activities; therefore, they are expected to bring detrimental effects on the host state's economic development in the long run. PRs provided by International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and WTO-TRIMs, too, included many abstract regulations which are grounded on the host state's economic efficiency in the past; however, those PRs are gradually being more concretely specified, shifting to a form of prohibition with the goals of increasing the protection on investors and realizing investment liberalization. Accordingly, when Korea freshly concludes IIAs or revises them afterwards, one should focus more on following the points regarding PRs. First, to protect Korean companies' investment activities, it is advantageous to list the contents of prohibited PRs extensively and concretely and create a stipulation. Second, it is necessary to list the contents of the PRs prohibited and add the phrases for prohibiting "any other similar requirements" explicitly, as well so as to cover the PRs that can appear newly. Third, as in the cases associated with PRs, issuable matters are mostly either the range of applying PRs or the conditions of applying them (relevance or detrimental effects); therefore, it is necessary to classify the cases accumulated by issues and analyze them thoroughly. In conclusion, as this study has analyzed the theoretical characteristics of PRs provided in IIAs and related cases and suggests exquisite theory regarding PRs, it not only lays fundamental grounds for follow-up research but also gives useful and practical guidelines for the parties concerned and the arbitrators according to the ISDS procedure.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.81-106
• /
• 2006

The Terms of Reference are one of the most distictive features of ICC Arbitration. No document of this type is required to be drawn up under the rules of any of the other major international arbitration institutions. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in Article 18 of ICC Rules of Arbitration, which results in the wide recognition of the Terms of Reference. As the volume of our international commercial transaction ranks almost ten in the world, the frequency using ICC Arbitration is expected to increase continuously. The Terms of Reference provide the parties and the arbitrators with an opportunity to identify and agree on procedural and other matters, such as the applicable law, the language of the arbitration and the timetable for the arbitration. They also afford the parties and the arbitrators to identify the substantive issues that are addressed in the arbitration and to delimit the precise scope of the Arbitract Tribunal's mandate. The contents of the Terms of Reference which are provided in Article 18(1) include the summary of parties claims, the list of issues and procedural rules. For the effects of the Terms of Reference, they are not intended to replace the parties' arbitration agreement. But they may in certain circumstances be regarded as a form of submission agreement. Article 18(2) provides that the Terms of Reference shall be signed by the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal, and requires the Arbitral Tribunal to transmit a signed copy of the Terms of Reference to the Court within two months of the date on which the file was transmitted to it by the Secretariat. The Court enjoys the power to extend the two-month time limit for the Terms of Reference on the reasoned request of the Arbitral Tribunal or on the Court's own initiative. Article 18(3) provides that if any of the parties refuses to take part in the drawing up of the Terms of Reference or to sign the same, they shall be submitted to the Court for approval. Article 18(4) allows the Arbitral Tribunal to extablish in a separate document a provisional timetable. This is a provision that encourages the acceleration of the arbitraction process. The timetable provided for therein is merely "provisional" and may be modified, as necessary, during the course of the arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.