• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.95-107
• /
• 2017

Mongolian government enacted the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law to modernize the practice of commercial arbitration. Nevertheless, the Foreign Trade Arbitration Trade Law fell short on a number of fronts and arbitration itself remained a distant second option to litigation within Mongolia. Law on Arbitration of 2003 aimed to modernize the Mongolian arbitration framework so that it would mirror the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. At the same time, the Law on Arbitration 2003 made a conscious decision to deviate from international norms with respect to certain aspects in order to accommodate for the unique circumstances and characteristics of Mongolia. For example, unlike its UNCITRAL counterpart, the Law on Arbitration of 2003 did not include an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In that sense, the Law on Arbitration of 2003 was a resounding success and a drastic improvement on the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law. These factors convinced the Mongolian government to once again revise its arbitration law. This process, which started in 2008 with the help of foreign law firms and institutions, ultimately culminated in the Law of Arbitration of 2017. The chief objective of the Law of Arbitration of 2017 was to more closely adhere to preexisting international norms on arbitration such as the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and there is no question that Mongolia has succeeded in doing so. This article thus concludes by explaining some of the noteworthy improvements made by the 2017 revisions, and by noting that Mongolia is now equipped with a truly international legal framework for arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.81-119
• /
• 2006

The parties in the trade can have full autonomy and can resolve disputes independently, impartially and without delay by selecting arbitration by agreement. Korea and Japan had revised their Arbitration Laws to incorporate as many provisions of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as possible. Japan had amended its century-old arbitration law, becoming the 45th country to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on International commercial arbitration. New Arbitration Law was enacted as Law No.138 of 2003 and effective on March 1, 2004, is applicable to both national and international arbitration. Korea had amended its arbitration law on December 31, 1999 and its New Arbitration Law incorporates the most of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as Japan. Arbitration must be popular in resolving international commercial disputes in Northeast Asian bloc in order to increase the volume of intra-trade in the Northeast Asian bloc. But in order for the parties to make use of arbitration in the bloc, the arbitration laws of nations in the bloc must have similarity and unification. As Korea and Japan playes important roles in the bloc, both nations's arbitration laws must be studied in view of similarity and difference to unify both nations' arbitration laws by way of showing an example. Therefore, this paper deals with both nations' arbitration laws in view of comparative law to unify their arbitration laws and Northeast Asian Nations' arbitration laws.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2012

China instituted arbitration law on September 1, 1995, after having legislated the law under the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, Chinese arbitration law has some problems related to the effectiveness of its arbitration agreement, unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law. Thus, parties in dispute who want to settle a dispute based on Chinese arbitration law as governing law have more to take into consideration because there could be serious problems related to the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, this paper attempted to analyze the classification of jurisdiction related to the authorization of effectiveness in arbitration agreement of arbitral organization and Chinese, verify the problems, and suggest the solutions. Moreover, the author tried to verify the problems in applying the law related to the authorization of effectiveness in Chinese arbitration agreements and suggest some improvements. This paper also suggests improvements and problems related to the selection of arbitral organizations among several conditions for effective arbitration agreement in Chinese arbitration law. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures related to arbitrations agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.495-522
• /
• 2016

The Mongolia is one of the highly impressive potential developing countries in Asia according to open the economic market. Since early 1990 as the falling apart from Russian union, Mongolia has tried to developing economic status with plentiful stocked natural resources in their country. The Mongolia has been accepting the modernizing their legal systems including national amended law of arbitration 2003 which was based in the 'UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985' to harmonize with the international arbitration trends. However, UNCITRAL council announced the adapting members countries excluding Mongolia caused by the inappropriate international standard conditions. As the foreign business partners with Mongolian, it is not easy to agree a site in Mongolia for the place of arbitration on their disputes settlement cause by the weak confidence and precarious interruption under the arbitration processing and enforcement of award on the uncertain law of arbitration on their law of arbitration. Recently, the Mongolian government intends to revise their arbitration law to comply to newly UNCITRAL Model Law in 2006 revision for improving the putting confidence and promoting the choosing arbitration on the place of commercial disputes in Mongolia. It is the point to considering in this article to compare to the problems and alternative ways to the legal and practical arbitration services for reliant and confirming arbitration system in Mongolia for the business parties of Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.183-232
• /
• 1999

The legislative body of The People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress, enacted the first arbitration act in China's history on August 31st, 1994, which took effect on September 1, 1995. The problems revealed through a comparison of China's Arbitration Act with the UNCITRAL model arbitration law were studied as well as the enacting process, background, status and system, important contents, problems of Chaina's Arbitration Act, and the differences between the old arbitration regulations and the new arbitration act. These are all discussed in this paper. The Arbitration Act is the basic act ruling over china's arbitration system: it unified the previously confusing laws and regulations relevant to the arbitration system, and the act brings out fundamental changes in China's domestic arbitration to the level of international arbitration standards. It is possible to view this act as a cornerstone in China's arbitration system. But, as discussed in this paper, there are still a lot of problems with the new act and only a few of the merits which the UNCITRAL model arbitration law has. First, under China's Arbitration Act, parties enjoy autonomy to some degree, but the range of party autonomy, compared to that of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, is too narrow. Second, because China's Arbitration Act didn't explicitly provide issues which can give rise to debate, a degree of confusion in its interpretation still remains. Third, China's Arbitration Act's treatment of some important principles was careless. Fourth, in some sections, China's Arbitration Act is less reasonable than the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. These problems must be resolved in order to develop China's arbitration system. The best way of resolving these problems for China is to adopt the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. But it is difficult to expect that China will accept this approach, because of the present arbitration circumstances in China. Although it is difficult to accept all the contents of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, China's legislators and practitioners must consider the problems mentioned in this paper.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2006

Arbitration, which involves a final determination of disputes, has elements of the judicial process. Although an alternative to formal court litigation, it does not replace it in all aspect, but rather coexists with court procedure as an adjunct and part of administering justice. As the international trade has the basic problems of business managed between the parties of other countries having different laws, customs, cultures, currencies and religions. It has been known that these defects caused the commercial disputes and suspended economic fluence in world economic development through the foreign business. The United Nations launched 'the United Nations Convention on the Enforcement and Recognition of the Foreign Arbitral Awards' in 1958 to give effect to the international commercial arbitration. However, the convention has the limitation in excluding the legal obstacles originated from domestic arbitration systems of every states. As the result, the UN succeeded in making world wide arbitration law named 'The UN Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration' in 1983 and recommended all member countries to accept it to revise their domestic arbitration laws thereafter. Korea revised national arbitration law accepting 100% of the model law in 2000. In this respect korea became to have the international dispute settlement system. Korea will be able to settle more business disputes arisen from the international trade and enjoy the world credibility through the new arbitration system.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.29-49
• /
• 2021

The Chinese Arbitration Law came into force in 1995 and has been implemented for 26 years. As a party to the New York Convention, there are many contradictions and conflicts between the Chinese Arbitration Law and the New York Convention on the issue of ad hoc arbitration, and this institutional disconnection can bring about problems such as misalignment of arbitration powers. On July 30, 2021, China's Ministry of Justice published a draft of the revised Arbitration Law for public consultation, and the draft has generated a lively debate among the public. This article explores the reasonable and inadequate points of the draft of Arbitration Law in light of the recent trends in the use of commercial arbitration in China, the COVID-19, the Free Trade Zone, and the relationship between the Civil Code and the Arbitration Law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2016

In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.