• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2014

Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly new ADR process dating back to the 1970s. Med-Arb capitalizes on the advantages of both mediation and arbitration, while eliminating many of their disadvantages. Mediation has the advantage of allowing for resolutions rather than decisions. Arbitration has the advantage of guaranteeing that the matter will be resolved when the procedure is over. In Med-Arb, the participants agree to be parties to mediation, and if the mediation comes to an impasse, a final settlement will be reached through arbitration. This study first explicates the origin and the development of Med-Arb in the United States. This study shows that the emergence of Med-Arb is benefited from the fact that arbitration has lost its own advantages ie, speed, cost-saving, and maintenance of an ongoing relationship between the disputants. Second, this study analyzes four cases in which Med-Arb is applied to various kinds of disputes as a tool of dispute resolution: labor disputes, entertainment disputes, will disputes, and international commercial disputes, consecutively. All those case studies show the generality of Med-Arb as a dispute resolution channel. Third, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages of Med-Arb. Finally, this study discusses the implications of Med-Arb. In particular it provides the universality of this hybrid form of dispute resolution in the East and West. For example, we show that China has its own distinctive Med-Arb system, where it has developed from ancient Confucian philosophy. Japan also emphasizes the role of an arbitrator who settles the disputes in the course of arbitration. The domestic arbitration rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) have a similar process in that arbitration contains an element of conciliation. With regard to the universal characteristics of Med-Arb, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of Med-Arb at a deeper level in the future. One caveat is that it is necessary to handle the issues of the neutrality of the mediator-arbitrator.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2020

The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid is becoming more popular since it makes an amicable relationship and thorough statement possible. The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid has been used to take advantage of both dispute resolution methods. In a Med-Arb process, negotiating a resolution to disputes is attempted with a mediator's help. If the mediation ends in an impasse or issues remain unresolved, parties can move on to arbitration. Med-Arb can also be cost-effective when disputants hire one person to serve as mediator and arbitrator (Med-Arb-Pure). However, it can disturb the fairness and neutrality of arbitrators, and awards can be annulled. Indeed, "Award by Consent" is different from the "Med-Arb-Pure" process. Arbitrators easily confuse them. Only the parties settle on the arbitral proceedings' course, and the arbitrator can help them (award by consent). The role and skill of a mediator are different from an arbitrator's. Disputants have the right to use a mediator who specializes in mediation. Moreover, mediation communication confidentiality is the essential value of mediation, and this should be protected. Therefore, in the process of "Med-Arb," separation between mediating and arbitrating is a better choice to specialize in each expertise. In this process, "Med-Arb" can be an affordable, expeditious, proper, and effective method of resolving international commercial disputes and continuing ADR prime time.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.523-541
• /
• 2016

According to Chinese Arbitration Law, combination of mediation with arbitration means that in the process of arbitration, arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case they are handling, provided both parties agree to do so. If mediation succeeds and the parties reach a settlement agreement, the arbitrators may render a consent award or a written mediation statement in accordance with the contents of the settlement agreement. If mediation fails, the arbitration proceedings will be resumed until the case is concluded by making of an arbitral award. There is no formal name of this system in China, it is called "combination of mediation with arbitration", "mediation in arbitration process" or "arbitration-mediation", the author of this thesis select "arbitration-mediation" and make it simply as "Arb-Med". This thesis concentrates on three issues that arbitrators and the parties have to clarify and pay attention to once they choose to use Arb-Med. The first part is about the 'waivable problems', include waive the right to challenge a arbitrator who act as a mediator at the same time with parties' approval, as well as the question about the waiver of the arbitrator's duty to disclose confidential information obtained during mediation. The second part is 'public policy in Arb-Med', introduces the concept of public policy, the bias may arise the complaint about public policy, and the due procedure problem. And the last part is about the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, especially about the award including some contents which has relation to third party's interests.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.161-181
• /
• 2014

This thesis, which mainly focuses on the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, will mainly deal with three characteristics and analyze the causes that directly or indirectly influence them. The first characteristic is China does not recognize ad hoc arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration is the initial form of arbitration, and it occupies an important position in many countries; however, China's judicial system does not recognize it. There are many disadvantages for building a system of ad hoc arbitration in China; i. e., the arbitration system in China is undeveloped and shot-time established, and it lacks social and civil society basis, along with a credit system, which the Western ad hoc arbitration relies on. The second characteristic is the existence of excessive judicial supervision and control over arbitration in China. Judicial supervision over arbitration has been the customary practice in each country of the modern world, but sharp variation exists in the legal stipulations and the courts' attitude toward the standard to be applied in the supervision over arbitration. In China, there has always been a controversy over judicial supervision, and the standards applied in the supervision over arbitration by courts in different regions are less than identical. The last characteristic is the existence of a combination of mediation with arbitration, which is called Arb-Med in China. Such means that in the process of arbitration, the arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case it is handling if both parties agree to do so. Under the Chinese law, Arb-Med may lead to a binding and enforceable outcome. However, it has several legal disadvantages and almost no country adopts this system. China still insists that this system will go on because Arb-Med was first made in China, and its effect was proven through long-time practice in CIETAC.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2013

This article focuses on integrating institutional mediation systems, especially the analysis of the leading ADR operation. Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party, a mediator, facilitates the resolution of a dispute by promoting voluntary agreements by the parties to the dispute. A mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, focuses the parties on their interests, and seeks agreement. These standards give meaning to this definition of mediation. Standard mediation clauses are construed as broadly as possible, and mediation is compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that the mediation process is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Performing the conflicts check early in the process helps in eliminating any awkwardness or delays caused by making disclosures after mediation commences. Mediator impartiality is central to the mediation process. A mediator should mediate only those matters in which she or he can remain impartial and evenhanded. If at any time the mediator is unable to conduct the process in an impartial manner, the mediator is obligated to withdraw.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.239-282
• /
• 2019

The importance of ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution), which has the advantage of expertise, speed and neutrality due to the increase of arbitration cases due to domestic and foreign construction disputes, has emerged. Therefore, in order for the nation's arbitration system and the arbitration Organization to jump into the ranks of advanced international mediators, it is necessary to research the characteristics and advantages of these arbitration Organization through a study of prior domestic and foreign research and operation of international arbitration Organization. As a problem, First, education for the efficient promotion of arbitrators (compulsory education, maintenance education, specialized education, seminars, etc.). second, The effectiveness of arbitration in resolving construction disputes (hearing methods, composition of the tribunal, and speed). third, The issue of flexibility and diversity of arbitration solutions (the real problem of methodologies such as mediation and arbitration) needs to be drawn on the Arbitration laws and practical problems, such as laws, rules and guidelines. Therefore, Identify the problems presented in the preceding literature and diagnosis of the defects and problems of the KCAB by drawing features and benefits from the arbitration system operated by the international arbitration Institution. As an improvement, the results of an empirical analysis are derived for "arbitrator" simultaneously through a recognition survey. As a method of improvement, First, as an optimal combination of arbitration hearing and judgment in the settlement of construction disputes,(to improve speed). (1) A plan to improve the composition of the audit department according to the complexity, specificity, and magnification of the arbitration cases - (1)Methods to cope with the increased role of the non-lawyer(Specialist, technical expert). (2)Securing technical mediators for each specialized expert according to the large and special corporation arbitration cases. (2) Improving the method of writing by area of the arbitration guidelines, second, Introduction of the intensive hearing system for psychological efficiency and the institutional improvement plan (1) Problems of optimizing the arbitration decision hearing procedure and resolution of arbitration, and (2) Problems of the management of technical arbitrators of arbitration tribunals. (1)A plan to expand hearing work of technical arbitrator(Review on the introduction of the Assistant System as a member of the arbitration tribunals). (2)Improved use of alternative appraisers by tribunals(cost analysis and utilization of the specialized institution for calculating construction costs), Direct management of technical arbitrators : A Study on the Improvement of the Assessment Reliability of the Appraisal and the Appraisal Period. third, Improvement of expert committee system and new method, (1) Creating a non-executive technical committee : Special technology affairs, etc.(Major, supports pre-qualification of special events and coordinating work between parties). (2) Expanding the standing committee.(Added expert technicians : important, special, large affairs / pre-consultations, pre-coordination and mediation-arbitration). This has been shown to be an improvement. In addition, institutional differentiation to enhance the flexibility and diversity of arbitration. In addition, as an institutional differentiation to enhance the flexibility and diversity of arbitration, First, The options for "Med-Arb", "Arb-Med" and "Arb-Med-Arb" are selected. second, By revising the Agreement Act [Article 28, 2 (Agreement on Dispute Resolution)], which is to be amended by the National Parties, the revision of the arbitration settlement clause under the Act, to expand the method to resolve arbitration. third, 2017.6.28. Measures to strengthen the status role and activities of expert technical arbitrators under enforcement, such as the Act on Promotion of Interestments Industry and the Information of Enforcement Decree. Fourth, a measure to increase the role of expert technical Arbitrators by enacting laws on the promotion of the arbitration industry is needed. Especially, the establishment of the Act on Promotion of Intermediation Industry should be established as an international arbitration agency for the arbitration system. Therefore, it proposes a study of improvement and differentiation measures in the details and a policy, legal and institutional improvement and legislation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.55-87
• /
• 2011

This paper is to illustrate a variety of court-annexed ADR programs and vindicate its implications of court-annexed ADR in United States. It has been almost three decades since Frank Sender articulated his vision of the multi-door courthouse. The court-annexed ADR originated from the concept of multi-door court house. Professor Sander argued that the court must transform from the court that provides litigation, only one type of dispute resolution, to the multi-door courthouse which provides a variety of dispute resolution methods including a number of ADR programs. The types of court-annexed ADR on which this paper focus are court-annexed mediation, court-annexed arbitration, mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, rent-a-judge, and med-arb in United States. The findings of this paper is as follows. First, the ADR movement is the irreversible and dominant phenomenon in the US court. The motivation of incorporating ADR into court is to reduce the cost of court to handle the civil disputes and to eliminate the delay of litigation process in the court. At the same time, a couple of studies of ADR revealed that the ADR program satisfied users of ADR. Second, the landscape of ADR has not been fixed. In 1970's, the court-annexed arbitration has been popular. In 1980's, the diverse kinds of ADR programs were introduced into the federal court as well as state courts, such as mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, and court-annexed mediation. But in 2000s, the court-annexed mediation has been the dominant type of ADR in United States. Third, the each type of ADR program has its own place for the dispute resolution. Since Korean society enters into the stage in which diverse kind of disputes occur in the areas of environment, construction, medicare, etc, it is desirable to take into consideration of the introduction of ADR to dispute resolution in Korea.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.364-375
• /
• 2011

Given that single blockade with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can achieve only partial and undurable suppression of the Renin Angiotensin System (RAS), it has been hypothesized that dual blockage would be more beneficial in the management of blood pressure (BP) reduction and prevention of progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) than either agent alone. Thus, it has been suggested that the combination of an ACEI and an ARB might provide renal benefits to hypertensive patients over and above BP reduction. However, this might also expose patients to additive or synergistic side effects. We attempted to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of combination therapy in hypertensive patients with or without kidney diseases. MEDLINE and KoreaMed were searched for relevant randomized clinical trials in adult hypertensive patients with or without diabetes (restricted to 1997, limited to trials published in English). Results were summarized using the random-effects model, and between-studies heterogeneity was estimated with $I^2$. A final analysis of ten trials (23,928 patients) revealed that the combination of an ACEI and an ARB reduced blood pressure (SBP/DBP) by 3.95/2.02 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.38 to -3.53/-2.33 to -1.71) compared with ACEI monotherapy, and 2.83/2.64 mmHg (95% CI, -3.25 to -2.41/-4.95 to -0.33) compared with ARB monotherapy. Eight trials (391 patients) demonstrated a significant reduction in 24h-proteinuria (weighted mean difference, 0.16 g/day, 95% CI, -0.26-0.05), but they did not translate into an improvement in GFR. Tests for heterogeneity showed no difference in effect among the studies. The combination therapy reduced proteinuria by 30% (95% CI, 23% to 37%) and 39% (95% CI, 31% to 48%) compared with ACEI monotherapy and ARB monotherapy, respectively. However, in patients who had proteinuria more than 0.5 g/day, the combination therapy failed to show significant reduction in urinary protein excretion. The current cumulative evidence suggests that diabetic patients with proteinuria on dual RAS blockade have an increase risk of adverse events such as hyperkalemia, hypotension, and so on, compared with ACEI or ARB alone. It is, therefore, proposed that the combination therapy should not be routinely used for the treatment of hypertension with or without compelling indications.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

The emergence of a multi-door courthouse is related with a couple of reasons as follows: First, a multi-door courthouse was originally initiated by the United States government that increasingly became impatient with the pace and cost of protracted litigation clogging the courts. Second, dockets of courts are overcrowded with legal suits, making it difficult for judges to handle those legal suits in time and causing delays in responding to citizens' complaints. Third, litigation is not suitable for the disputant that has an ongoing relationship with the other party. In this case, even if winning is achieved in the short run, it may not be all that was hoped for in the long run. Fourth, international organizations such as the World Bank, UNDP, and Asia Development Bank urge to provide an increased access to women, residents, and the poor in local communities. The generic model of a multi-door courthouse consists of three stages: The first stage includes a center offering intake services, along with an array of dispute resolution services under one roof. At the second stage, the screening unit at the center would diagnose citizen disputes, then refer the disputants to the appropriate door for handling the case. At the third stage, the multi-door courthouse provides diverse kinds of dispute resolution programs such as mediation, arbitration, mediation-arbitration (med-arb), litigation, and early neutral evaluation. This study suggests the extended model of multi-door courthouse comprised of five layers: intake process, diagnosis and door-selection process, neutral-selection process, implementation process of dispute resolution, and process of training and education. One of the major characteristics of extended multi-door courthouse model is the detailed specification of individual department corresponding to each process within a multi-door courthouse. The intake department takes care of the intake process. The screening department plays the role of screening disputes, diagnosing the nature of disputes, and determining a suitable door to handle disputes. The human resources department manages experts through the construction and management of the data base of mediators, arbitrators, and judges. The administration bureau manages the implementation of each process of dispute resolution. The education and training department builds long-term planning to procure neutrals and experts dealing with various kinds of disputes within a multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, it is necessary to establish networks among courts, law schools, and associations of scholars in order to facilitate the supply of manpower in ADR neutrals, as well as judges in the long run. This study also provides six case studies of multi-door courthouses across continents in order to grasp the worldwide picture and wide spread phenomena of multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, the United States and Latin American countries including Argentina and Brazil, Middle Eastern countries, and Southeast Asian countries (such as Malaysia and Myanmar), Australia, and Nigeria were chosen. It was found that three kinds of patterns are discernible during the evolution of a multi-door courthouse model. First, the federal courts of the United States, land and environment court in Australia, and Lagos multi-door courthouse in Nigeria may maintain the prototype of a multi-door courthouse model. Second, the judicial systems in Latin American countries tend to show heterogenous patterns in terms of the adaptation of a multi-door courthouse model to their own environments. Some court systems of Latin American countries including those of Argentina and Brazil resemble the generic model of a multi-door courthouse, while other countries show their distinctive pattern of judicial system and ADR systems. Third, it was found that legal pluralism is prevalent in Middle Eastern countries and Southeast Asian countries. For example, Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia have developed various kinds of dispute resolution methods, such as sulh (mediation), tahkim (arbitration), and med-arb for many centuries, since they have been situated at the state of tribe or clan instead of nation. Accordingly, they have no unified code within the territory. In case of Southeast Asian countries such as Myanmar and Malaysia, they have preserved a strong tradition of customary laws such as Dhammthat in Burma, and Shriah and the Islamic law in Malaysia for a long time. On the other hand, they incorporated a common law system into a secular judicial system in Myanmar and Malaysia during the colonial period. Finally, this article proposes a couple of factors to strengthen or weaken a multi-door courthouse model. The first factor to strengthen a multi-door courthouse model is the maintenance of flexibility and core value of alternative dispute resolution. We also find that fund raising is important to build and maintain the multi-door courthouse model, reflecting the fact that there has been a competition surrounding the allocation of funds within the judicial system.