• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.65-97
• /
• 2014

Arbitration is the dispute methods for speedy and economic resolutions in international commercial areas. In maritime disputes cases in East Asia, Korea and Japan are the regional benefits to cover and deal with the maritime cases on arbitration. And Korea and Japan are the competitive maritime industry for heavy shipbuilding industry, cargo carrier, processing and transhipment service on ports, and ship financial services in national competitive areas. Japan is the Tokyo maritime arbitration commission(TOMAC) as an uniquely capable of dealing with arbitrations involving problems arising in the sea field. TOMAC provides amended its arbitration rules 2014 aiming at matching with the maritime disputes circumstances with three maritime arbitration rules as ordinary rules, simplified rules and the rules of small claims arbitration procedure. KCAB however, as the unique commercial arbitration board in Korea is dealing on all of the commercial disputes on only the international commercial arbitration rules in 2011. Though KCAB is dealt with maritime dispute cases on international arbitration rules in Korea, it is small and simple compared with TOMAC in Japan. Maritime disputes are highly complicated and embroiled with multi-parties contract and subcontracts arising under contracts relating to bills of lading, charter parties, sale and purchase of ships, shipbuilding, ship financing and so forth. This paper is to provides a discussion and comparison on recently arbitration rules focus on the maritime aspects on Korea and Japan. We need to consider to make an independent and special institute and maritime arbitration rules including the multiparty consolidation and med-arb provisions for handling the disputes and resolution of maritime conflict cases in Korea.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.137-161
• /
• 2023

This paper explores the limited role of alliances in preventing maritime territorial disputes among member states, using the ongoing conflict between Greece and Türkiye, two NATO allies, as a case study. Drawing on Institutionalist theory, we seek to explain the mechanisms that have contributed to the failure of the alliance to prevent this dispute, despite constant cooperation and transparency. Unlike land disputes, maritime territorial disputes are complex and multi-layered, with fluid boundaries that can change with climate or natural resource availability. Moreover, the lack of constant surveillance creates ambiguity about territorial encroachment thresholds. These factors have exacerbated the dispute between Greece and Türkiye, drawing other NATO members into the conflict and undermining the strength of the alliance. This paper concludes by providing policy implications for the Republic of Korea in its own potential maritime disputes, and contributes to the broader literature on the role of alliances in preventing territorial disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.30
• /
• pp.177-199
• /
• 2012

As is generally known, the sovereignty dispute over the Senkaku Islands between China/Taiwan and Japan was triggered by a report commissioned by the UN in 1968, which reported the possibility of a substantial amount of petroleum and natural gas buried in the South China Sea. When the administrative authority over the Ryukyu Islands was transferred from the US to Japan in 1972, jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands was also transferred. A dispute ensued between China (Taiwan) and Japan over the Senkaku Islands except during the period in which formal relations were established between the two states. This paper will take a look particularly at the events that occurred in the 2000's and discuss their recent trends and aspects of the dispute. Though China and Japan agreed to joint resource development in 2008, the agreed zone was a very small area adjacent to the Korea-Japan Joint Continental Shelf Development Zone, and the points of agreement have not been implemented. China has been developing four oil fields including Chunxiao in its waters adjacent to the median line asserted by Japan. However, China also has been excluding the participation of Japan, while Japan has been strongly objecting to the unilateral development of oil fields by China. If indeed the oil fields on China's side are connected past the median line asserted by Japan, then China's unilateral development will infringe upon the potential sovereign rights of Japan, thereby violating international law.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.38
• /
• pp.13-46
• /
• 2015

Dokdo issue reaches beyond economic and security interest to Koreans, as it is regarded as symbol of her independence. Albeit the fact that Japan has merely no legitimate title over Dokdo, Japan has been tenaciously insisting their jurisdiction over Dokdo since the independence of Korea. Under such circumstances, public outrage towards Japan is most certainly understandable. Yet, mere outrage itself, lacking in logic and factual grounds, can contribute little if not any, to the desirable solution of the problem. Precedents reveal that dealing maritime issues amid lack of profound understanding in international law has often led to undesirable results, such as the inclusion of Dokdo in the Joint Management Fisheries Zone in 1999 Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement. In a sense, adroit use of international law is a critical element in preserving Korea's sovereign rights against persistent Japanese plans to rob Dokdo once again. The Dokdo issue is inextricably bound to international law; the legal status of Dokdo as island, the equitable solution of maritime boundary delimitation and effective control, existence of dispute. Yet, the public policies and arguments made by pundits are generally in lack of understanding in international law. It is now the time for Korea to commence on long-term cross-academia / department plans to establish Dokdo strategy as part of the nationwide maritime strategy effectively using international law as its stronghold.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.36
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2015

In 1996, China, Japan and the ROK all became the party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Since then, the UNCLOS has been a fundamental basis for the resolution and management of maritime disputes amongst them. However, there still remain acrimonious disputes in the region. Resources nationalism and the revival of geopolitics aggravates the disputes particularly on sovereignty over disputed islands, maritime delimitation and the legal nature of military activities in other States' Exclusive Economic Zones. Under the circumstances, why have the demands for the conclusion of a regional agreement been raised in this region? A desirable regional agreement regarding ocean affairs should be compatible with the rights and obligations under the UNCLOS, a universal norm regarding ocean affairs. This paper will propose a desirable regional agreement by adopting an incremental approach.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.211-235
• /
• 2021

As a result of the Falkland Islands War from April 2 to June 14, 1982, Britain overcame severe economic depression and reclaimed the glory of the former British Empire by winning the war. On the other hand, Argentina was greatly affected by the collapse of a military dictatorship and the birth of a democratic government. This study suggests strategies for responding to maritime disputes that may occur in Dokdo Island in the future by applying "DIME on PMESII" to the Falkland Islands dispute. In particular, the study analyzes how DIME (diplomacy, information, military, and economy) capabilities have an effect as a means of the total national power of a country that effectively controls the disputed territory. Based on the results of this study, the response strategies related to the Dokdo maritime dispute are as follows. First, effective control over the disputed territory should be effectively maintained and strengthened like in Britain. This strategy inspires patriotism, supports the government during warfare, secures a just cause for war, and gains international support. Second, 'DIME on PMESII' was effective in modern warfare by focusing our DIME capabilities on the weaknesses of the other country's PMESII system. That is, wars are not won simply by the conflict of armed forces but by a nation's overall national strength, such as diplomatic, information, and economic capabilities. Third, appropriate strategies for neighboring countries are needed to overcome the possibility of limited warfare in the sea through preparations for Dokdo maritime disputes in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.145-179
• /
• 2001

The Federal Maritime Commission is issuing new regulations implementing the Administrative dispute Resolution Act. The new regulations expand the Commission's Alternative dispute resolution(“ADR”) services, addressing guidelines and procedures for arbitration and providing for mediation and other ADR services. This rule replaces current subpart U-(Conciliation Service), with a new subpart U-(Alternative Dispute Resolution), that contains a new Commission ADR policy and provisions for various means of ADR. The rule also revises certain other regulations to conform to the Commission's new ADR policy. So, this paper object was to study on the FMC's ADR in U.S. with the emphasis on the final rule analysis.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.221-221
• /
• 2017

• Strategy21
• /
• s.42
• /
• pp.154-195
• /
• 2017

This paper is to analyse conflict between the US and China over the South China Sea and Korea's responses. To this end the paper is composed of 6 chapters titled instruction; the current status of South China Sea sovereignty disputes; changes in US and Chinese maritime security strategies and the strategic values of the South China Sea; key issues and future prospects for US-China conflicts in the South China Sea; South Korea's security and diplomatic responses; and conclusion. The recent East Asian maritime security issue has evolved into a global issue of supremacy between the US and China, beyond conflicts over territorial disputes and demarcation among the countries in the region. China is pursuing offensive ocean policy to expand economic growth. The core of the maritime order that the United States intends to pursue is the freedom of navigation in the oceans and the maintenance of maritime access. China is making artificial islands in the South China Sea, claiming the sovereignty of these islands, building strategic bases in East Asia, and securing routes. The United States has developed several "Freedom of Navigation Operations" to neutralize the declaration of the territorial sea surrounding Chinese artificial islands. We can not be free from marine conflicts in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Regarding the South China Sea dispute, it is expected that the strategic competition and conflict between the two countries will intensify due to China's failure to make concessions of core interests and adherence to the US compliance with international norms. In the midst of conflict over the South China Sea, we need a harmonious balance between our alliance security and economic diplomacy. We must continue our efforts to strengthen the ROK-US alliance but not to make China an enemy. Considering the significant impacts of the oceans on the survival and prosperity of the nation, we must continue to develop our interest in the oceans, appropriate investments and tactical strategies.