• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.85-106
• /
• 2017

This article deals with the relationship between arbitration and state court in each procedural stage. As most legal systems over the world respect arbitration agreement, the relationship between arbitration and state courts puts emphasis on party autonomy and provides the independent power of arbitration agreement tribunal (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Most institutional arbitration rules the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Modern national laws have similar provisions based on Art. 16 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this regards the author throws a question in Chapter II, whether the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, namely the ability of the tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction is worth while persisting, and whether the Kompetenz-Kompetenz-agreement should be regarded as valid, with the conclusion, that this doctrine should concede to the power of state court and that Kompetenz-Kompetenz-Klausel is invalid. In Chapter III the author discusses the issue of whether the breach of an arbitration agreement could lead to the compensation of damage. Although the author stands for the procedural character of arbitration agreement, he offers a proposal that the breach of an arbitration agreement bring about the compensation of damage. The issue of anti-suit injunction is discussed also in this Chapter. He is against the approval of anti-suit injunction based on an arbitration agreement resisting the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2015

For many years commentators have requested more active regulation of attorney ethics in international arbitration. Gradual deterioration of ethical standards in international arbitration will bring disrepute and, once its reputation is lost, it could take decades to rebuild confidence. The first reason for increasing unethical behavior is that there is no ethical code generally applied to all lawyers participating in international arbitration. A second reason might be that nobody is actively regulating attorneys in international arbitration. The first step to solve this problem is that major arbitration institutions should cooperate to enact a uniform code of conduct to be generally applied to all attorneys representing parties in international arbitration. Recently, IBA and LCIA prepared guidelines on party representation in international arbitration, and the guidelines will help attorneys follow uniform standardsof ethics. However, this will not be sufficient. There should be a regulating body to monitor attorney ethics and take sanctions against unethical attorneys accordingly. Arbitrators, who can see unethical behavior by attorneys from the closest distance, are the most appropriate regulating force rather than courts of arbitration seat or an attorney's licensing country. Of course, arbitrators don't have powers to withdraw or suspend an attorney's license, but they have powers to control attorneys'behavior within arbitration proceedings such as an allocation of fees and costs, barring the assertion of claims or defenses, drawing adverse inferences, or precluding the submission of evidence or testimony. Furthermore, arbitrators should be provided with such obligation as active control of attorney ethics. Even arbitration institutions should participate by imposing on an attorney who is a repeat offender a suspension from appearing in future arbitrations. Unethical behavior will decrease through concerted actions among arbitrational institutions to introduce a uniform code of conduct and to empower arbitrators for more efficient regulation of attorney ethics.

• 한국정보통신학회논문지
• /
• 제18권11호
• /
• pp.2703-2708
• /
• 2014

전형적인 버스 시스템 구조는 공용버스 내에 여러 개의 마스터와 슬레이브, 아비터 그리고 디코더 등으로 구성되어 있다. 복수의 마스터가 동시간대에 버스를 이용할 수 없으므로, 아비터는 이를 중재하는 역할을 수행한다. 아비터가 어떠한 중재방식을 선택하는가에 따라 버스 사용의 효율성이 결정된다. 기존의 중재 방식에는 Fixed Priority 방식, Round-Robin 방식, TDMA 방식, Lottery 방식 등이 연구되고 있는데, 버스 전송량, 대기사이클 그리고 우선순위가 주로 고려되어 있다. 본 논문에서는 대기사이클을 고려하는 버스중재 방식을 제안하고, TLM(Transaction Level Model)을 통해 다른 중재 방식과 비교하여 버스 전송량과 대기 사이클을 검증하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.23-46
• /
• 2021

Sports disputes have specific characteristics compared to disputes that arise in the field of commerce. One particularity is the judicial system in which the CAS plays a key role as the International Supreme Court for sports-related matters. The CAS Code applies whenever the parties agree to submit a sports-related dispute to the CAS(Art. R27). Once the parties to the arbitration agreement have decided that the CAS Code should govern their proceedings. The parties' autonomy is, however, limited to the provisions of the CAS Code that provide for such a corresponding autonomy. The application of the mandatory rules contained in the CAS Code cannot be excluded. In CAS appeals arbitration proceedings, the Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable sports regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties(Art. R58). In international sports disputes, the uniform application and interpretation of the relevant regulations are essential. Therefore, Art. R58 should be applied as a mandatory rule without any changes. Regulations of the sports organizations are to be qualified as valid rules of law. CAS panels may also apply the so-called lex sportiva to the merits before considering statutory provisions of national jurisdictions. In this way, the specificities in (international) sports disputes can be taken into account without the need to further examine the application of national legal standards.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.141-164
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this paper is to examine the customs clearance and arbitration systems of Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, from among ASEAN countries, and to present the practical implications. This paper analyzes the customs and arbitration systems through a literature review by collecting data from papers, research reports, and laws and regulations related to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. There are significant differences between these countries in relation to customs and payment of customs duties. Also, they have different procedures for the appointment of arbitrators if there is no agreement by the parties as to the number of arbitrators. Therefore, a comparison of the arbitration system and customs clearance procedures in ASEAN countries is timely and necessary, and there is a need for more research to be conducted in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2007

The International Chamber of Commerce has been the world's leading organization in the field of international commercial dispute resolution. Established in 1923 as the arbitration body of ICC, the International Court of Arbitration has pioneered international commercial arbitration as it is known today. The ICC International Court of Arbitration is the world's foremost institution in the resolution of international business disputes. While most arbitration institutions are regional or national in scope, the ICC Court is truly international. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in ICC Rules of Arbitration as follows; First, before the actual merits of the case can be addressed, the Arbitral Tribunal must first draw up the Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference should include the particulars listed in the ICC Rules. Apart from the full names and description of the parties and arbitrators, the place of arbitration and a summary of the parties' respective claims, they contain particulars concerning the applicable procedural rules and any other provisions required to make the Award enforceable at law Second, the Scrutiny is a fundamental feature of ICC arbitration and is one that distinguishes it from the other major international arbitration rules. The scrutiny system has two aspects ; the first is to identify or modify the defects of form, while the second is to draw the arbitrators' attention to points of substance. Third, as soon as practicable, the Court fixes an advance on costs intended to cover the estimated fees and expenses of the arbitrators, as well as the administrative expenses of ICC. Specially, the advance on costs fixed by the Court shall be payable in equal shares by the Claimant and Respondent. Finally, the parties are also free to select the arbitrator or arbitrators of their choice. The Court or the Secretary General confirms arbitrators nominated by the parties. Taking a step forward, to upgrade the quality of the award of KCAB, it is desirable to consider how to incorporate the main contents of the ICC Arbitration into Korea Commercial Arbitration Rules.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.151-176
• /
• 2011

본 연구는 한국의 중재현황을 살펴본 뒤 최근의 학문적 추세를 고려하여 학문융합적 연구방법을 통하여 중재를 연구하는 것이 미래 중재연구방향에 있어 중요함을 밝히고 있다. 한국의 중재현황을 살펴보면, 첫째는 한국의 교역규모와 교역상대국이 증가함에 따라서 분쟁이 증가하면서 중재가 중요한 분쟁해결방식으로 부상하고 있다는 점이다. 둘째, 분쟁의 원인을 살펴보면 대금결제와 매매계약과 관련된 분쟁이 가장 큰 원인이라는 점이다. 셋째, 분쟁당사국들도 유럽을 포함해서 수가 늘어나고 있다는 점이다. 이러한 특정들은 중재를 하나의 학문적 방법론에만 의지해서 연구하는 것이 충분치 않다는 점을 나타내고 있다. 본 연구에서는 학문융합적 중재연구프로그램을 제시하였다. 본 연구는 학문융합적 방법론으로 법학적 방법론, 제도적 방법론, 문화적 방법론, 인과적 방법론, 실증적 방법론을 제시하였으며, 이러한 방법론들을 중재에 도입하여 중재를 학문 융합적으로 분석할 것을 제안하였다. 전통적으로는 법학적 방법론이 중재연구에서 주로 사용한 방법론이었지만 향후 중재는 그 외의 다양한 방법론을 통해서 연구하는 것이 바람직해 보인다.