• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2008

At its thirty-ninth session(New York, 19 June - 7 July 2006), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(hereinafter referred to as the Commission) agreed to give priority to the topic of revising the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. From the forty-fifth through the forty-seventh session, the Working Group checked various issues based on the draft revised version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules prepared by the Secretariat. At its forty-eighth session, the Working Group is going to finish its first reading of articles 38 to 41 of the draft revised version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and to commence its second reading of the draft revised version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Korea is keen on enticing foreign direct investment into its territory. From the 1960s, Korea has concluded more than 80 BITs. Korea is making efforts to conclude FTAs with its trading partners. As of January, 2008, 3 FTAs have taken into effect with respect to Korea. According to provisions on dispute settlement found in such BITs and FTAs involving Korea, the Rules can be chosen for Investor-State Arbitration. Furthermore, the Rules is followed by the arbitration rules for domestic and international arbitrations administered by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. If the Commission adopts the revised version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the Rules will be able to give impact on the arbitration law and practice around the world of arbitration. That is the reason why we should keep attention to the development of the deliberations of the Working Group.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2021

General lawsuits can be chosen as a method of resolving patent disputes. However, a significant amount of time and money is wasted on litigation until the dispute is resolved. The Intellectual Property Framework Act in Korea requires the government to simplify litigation procedures and improve litigation systems to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and fairly. As a result, accurate and timely resolution of patent disputes is given importance by the Korean government. Interest in arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution is growing. Although dispute resolution through arbitration is effective, the issue of resolving patent disputes through arbitration can lead to the arbitrability of patent disputes. It is therefore necessary to examine arbitrability of patent contracts and validity disputes. Korea has made efforts to reflect the model arbitration law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for quick judicial resolution of patent disputes. Korea has also strengthened related systems for alternative resolutions. However, improving the arbitration system will necessitate a thorough examination of the systems and practices of the United States which is the country in the forefront of intellectual property. This paper examines the arbitrability of Korea's patent dispute and makes recommendations for more efficient dispute resolution system changes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.81-99
• /
• 2013

One of the most defining characteristics of arbitration is that an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is established by parties' mutual agreement. If a party to the arbitral proceedings believes that a tribunal constituted lacks jurisdiction to conduct the arbitral proceedings, it may challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal in different ways. Although the concept of kompetenz-kompetenz and the grounds to challenge the Tribunal's jurisdiction are readily accepted in the arbitration community, what parties often fail to observe is the time limit imposed by the relevant laws in bringing such objections. This article aims to examine several main ways of challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction and the applicable time limits in each scenario. The article will then focus on the consequences of a party's failure to adhere to the strict time limits and its effect at the post-award stage. These issues will be considered in the light of case law from different Model law jurisdictions with particular illustrations from the arbitration law of Singapore.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.161-184
• /
• 2020

In the process of the annulment of arbitral awards, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court contributes to keeping Switzerland as a venue for international arbitration. Challenges to an award rendered in Switzerland are handled by the Swiss Supreme Court only. Furthermore, the Swiss law provides extremely limited grounds (PILA 190) for the potential challenge of the award and those are different from what model law countries have. For example, violations of the parties' agreed procedural arrangements will not be grounds for the annulment of an award in Swiss. In arbitration, the intervention of a national court is necessary to protect justice but at the same time, it can impede the process of arbitration, even making it useless. Limited intervention of the Swiss Supreme Court protects the efficiency, autonomy, and justice of international arbitration. International Arbitration has to be simple and fast to solve complex international commercial problems and to promote trade. Therefore, the process and technique to be applied on an Arbitration-friendly Swiss court should be considered.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.63-93
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this paper is to examine the consideration factors, from both parties' perspective, to select the most appropriate arbitral institution when they inset an arbitration clause in their contract. Accordingly, the author analyzed the advantages of institutional arbitration compared to non-institutional arbitration. The typical advantages of institutional arbitration would include: $\bullet$ Benefits of using an established set of rules $\bullet$ Services provided by the institution $\bullet$ Low risks of obstruction $\bullet$ Enhancement of the possibilities of enforcement $\bullet$ Forecast of the estimated cost $\bullet$ Specially useful for existing disputes Next, this author examined the consideration factors when selecting the institution in respect of the following factors: $\bullet$ Institution's arbitration rules $\bullet$ Institution's rule regarding the appointment of arbitrators $\bullet$ Ability of administrators of each institution $\bullet$ Reputation of the arbitral institution and the likability of enforceability of its award $\bullet$ Cost $\bullet$ Choice of the arbitral institution in relation to the choice of place of arbitration Finally, this author reviewed Model Arbitration Clause of major international or local Institutions, including ICC, AAA, LCIA, KCAB, CIETAC, ICSID and WIPO. Further examination was given to the selection of the numbers of the arbitral tribunal, the seat of arbitration and the language of arbitration, according to the designated articles in each institution's arbitration rules.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2016

International arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Asia is growing in popularity. Singapore has long been acknowledged as a regional arbitration center but Korea is now facing an increased demand as an arbitration center as well. As Singapore competes with Hong Kong and other international arbitration centers, and as Korea tries to become an alternative to Singapore, both Singapore and Korea have updated their arbitral laws and arbitration rules to reflect the current international arbitration trends. This paper examines the recent changes in the arbitration laws of Singapore and Korea, with an emphasis on recent changes in Korean arbitration laws that are designed to increase Korea's popularity as a regional arbitration center. Though Korea's reputation as an arbitration center is increasing, it is still not viewed as a major arbitration service provider. It is against this backdrop that Korea's international arbitration laws and rules will be viewed, with suggested changes to increase Korea's reputation as not only a regional hub but a center of international arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• pp.381-406
• /
• 2010

The enforcement of international arbitration raises a variety of procedural and related issues in national and international arbitral laws. In addition to the problems it is not easy to understand the rights and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal. Many countries and international rules allow the arbitral tribunal to submit the interim measures applied by a dispute party. However, interim measures are not recognised and enforced by itself in international commercial arbitration. It has not been completed in the rules of arbitration nationally and internationally. This is the reason why the confirmation of international and national laws is important to effect interim measures practically. In the case of Korean arbitral laws do not include articles of enforcement of interim measures even permit rights of decision of interim measures by arbitral tribunal in the national arbitral laws improperly and unreliably. This paper discuses the deficits of enforcement of interim measures which is submitted the type of award by the arbitral tribunal. The paper also points out and refers the revised model law of arbitration by UNCITRAL in 2006 which was changed to allow the interim award and should be imposed its enforcement of any types of interim measures by the arbitral tribunal in international commercial arbitration.