• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.1-31
• /
• 2014

The foundation of the arbitration jurisdiction is the arbitration agreement entered into by the parties to a contract. Usually, only the signatory parties to a contract and the disputes arising from a contract that includes an arbitration clause or to which the arbitration clause relates are the ones that can be submitted to arbitration. This article discusses some of the arguments for extending the arbitration clause in complex arbitrations, that is, in those cases where there are more than two parties, more than two contracts or more than two parties and contracts. Particularly, this paper addresses multiple contract arbitration when the contracts are related. One of the arguments used by the arbitral tribunal for the extension of jurisdiction is the existence of a link between the contracts. Additional arguments include implied consent, participation in the negotiation and performance of a contract and good faith. The article also discusses some of the typical cases of linked contracts in many civil law countries, such as subcontracts, third party beneficiaries and standard terms of contracts, from which arbitral jurisdictions problems may arise. Finally, special attention is given to Article 14 of the 2008 Peruvian Arbitration Law as the first provision in an arbitration law in Latin America that extends the arbitration agreement to non-signatory parties using for this a mixed approach.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• pp.101-119
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is contractual by nature. One cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. As commercial transactions become increasingly complex, involving multiple parties and numerous contracts for a single transaction, however, limiting the parties who are subject to arbitration to only those who have signed a contract containing an arbitration clause would frustrate the purpose of such arbitration clause and might lead to injustice among the relevant parties. Therefore, U.S. courts have recognized a number of theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Incorporation by reference and veil-piercing theories have already been recognized by Korean courts. Agency theory and estoppel theory are not recognizable under Korean law. However, the same or similar result may be achieved by applying the third party beneficiary theory or assumption by third party theory. Although a couple of Supreme Court cases appear to be at odds with the assumption theory, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, such court precedents can be and should be reversed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2008

When several parties are involved in a dispute, it is usually considered desirable that the issues should be dealt with in the same proceedings, rather than in a series of separate proceedings. This saves time and money. It avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions on the same issues of law and fact, since all issues are determined by the same tribunal at the same time. Where there is a multi-party arbitration, it may be because there are several parties to one contract, or it may be because there are several contracts with different parties that have a bearing on the matters in dispute. In international trade and commerce, for individuals, corporations or state agencies to join together in a joint venture or consortium or in some other legal relationship of this kind, in order to enter into a contract with another party or parties, where such a contract contains an arbitration clause and a dispute arises, the members of the consortium or joint venture may decided that they would each like to appoint an arbitrator. A different problem arises where there are several contracts with different parties, each of which has a bearing on the issues in dispute. A major international construction project is likely to involve not only the employer and the main contractor, but also a host of special suppliers and sub-contractors. Each of them will be operating under different contracts often with different choice of law and arbitration clauses. The appointment of the arbitrator or the composition of the arbitral tribunal should be in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The parties have to be equally treated in the constituting of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral proceedings. However, the right of the parties to nominate a member of the arbitral tribunal could be taken away from them, if they are subject to the restrictions by means of the law of the country where the arbitration is taking place. That is, multiple parties jointly should nominate one arbitrator, where there they have to exercise their substantive right in common, or one of them exert his substantive right, then it has an effect on another parties, or they, whether as claimant or as respondent, get the same or similar treatment in the arbitral procedure. Therefore it is necessary to intend to settle multi-party disputes quickly and efficiently.