• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-70
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and discussions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules that have been discussed and considered by the Working Group. At its thirty-ninth session (New York, 19 June-7 July 2006), the Commission agreed that, in respect of future work of the Working Group, priority be given to a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976). At its forty-fifth session (Vienna, 11-15 September 2006), the Working Group undertook to identify areas where a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules might be useful. At that session, it was considered that the focus of the revision should be on updating the Rules to meet changes that had taken place over the last thirty years in arbitral practice. The largely amended provisions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are as follows : Notice of arbitration and response to the notice of arbitration (Article 3), Designating and appointing authorities (Article 4 bis), November of arbitrators (Article 5), Appointment of arbitrations (Article 6), Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration (Article 7 bis), Challenge of arbitrators (Article 9), Replacement of an arbitrator (Article 13), Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Article 21), Interim measures (Article 26), Form and effect of the award (Article 32), and Liability of arbitrators (Proposed additional provisions). There are some differences between the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In order to jnternationalize the Korea's commercial arbitration system, it is desirable that the main articles of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should be admitted to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In conclusion, the Commission was generally of the view of any revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should not alter the structure of the text, its spirit, its drafting style, and should respect the flexibility of the text rather than make it more complex. The Working Group agreed that harmonizing the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law should not be automatic but rather considered only where appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.109-129
• /
• 2011

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international sports has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because the form of sports dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem. The Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) as the settlement of sports dispute is regarded as the one of effective dispute resolution method and merits notice. The Korean Sports Arbitration Committee has been established for dispute resolution between athletes and the clubs or alike. Now, We must review and complements the rules of the Korean Sports Arbitration Committee in order to be a representative system of domestic sports dispute arbitration that settle the sports dispute practically and efficiently.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.1-35
• /
• 2013

In the 21th century, its important role in international commercial disputes has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because commercial disputes have become more complicated and varied with their quantitative increase, it is important that they be settled in a reasonable and rapid manner. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is now regarded as one of the most effective dispute resolution methods for the settling of commercial disputes and merits notice. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which two parties agree to have their dispute resolved by one or more arbitrators and thereby avoid what could be costly and time-consuming court battles. Often contracts mandate that disputes be settled through arbitration. These arbitration clauses also frequently prohibit plaintiffs from banding together to bring an action on behalf of a larger class. An arbitration agreement is an agreement by parties to summit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them with respect to their defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. According to the Supreme Court, general elective arbitration clauses may be considered valid in light of all the relevant facts. Arbitration has been the subject of a great deal of research and the scope of effect in arbitration agreements is a promising avenue for future research.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.55-79
• /
• 2013

As arbitration becomes an increasingly popular mode of resolving disputes, neighboring industries begin to take notice. This interest is reflected in the increasing utilization of third party funding in international arbitration claims. In this regard, the third party funding industry appears particularly interested in investor-state arbitration claims because they typically involve considerable claim amounts and substantial legal fees. To examine this trend more closely, this paper, firstly, examines the investor-state arbitration more precisely in Chapter II. In Chapter III, this study continues to examine some legal issues which can arise as a result of a conflict of interest between the parties to the funding agreement including, inter alia, 1) a dispute in which the funder terminates the agreement during the arbitration proceedings, 2) a dispute in relation to a funder's intervention in arbitration proceedings, and 3) a dispute on the responsibility for adverse costs orders, if any. This paper further identifies major legal issues which can arise in relation to 1) disclosure of existence of the funding agreement, 2) attorney-client privilege. Lastly, in Chapter IV, this paper provides some lessons from an in-depth case study on third party funding agreements and solutions to avoid and to solve prospective disputes in the future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.225-253
• /
• 2005

Nowadays we does not hesitate to definite answer that the arbitration is the most developed dispute settlement out of court in the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is desirable for the reasons of speed and cost effectiveness to settle the dispute about the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is fast because it uses the communication technologies that allow information to be sent fast and efficiently. But in online arbitration too much speed and efficiency may lead to a violation of due process rights and consequently the online arbitration awards run a risk to be set aside or refused its enforcement under the international commercial arbitration mechanism. Speed and efficiency may conflict with the procedural guarantee characterizing each adversary dispute resolution process. As arbitration is exclusive of recourse to courts, a state must guarantee that arbitral proceeding should be satisfied with the claim rights requirement. The main question regarding the sources of regulation is particularly for the due process whether or not this is provided by the availability of grounds to set arbitral award aside. In other words, does it respect due process in the arbitration proceeding including information communication and technology under the online arbitration. In this paper it is discussed about how the main issue in arbitration should be implemented in online arbitration proceedings to cope with the due process requirements in national and international.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) 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. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.31-53
• /
• 2022

This paper examines various legal issues related to the assignment of monetary rights under UNIDROIT Principles. To this end, this paper examines the concept and the effects of the assignment of rights, the related legal structure and notice to the obligor, and some uses in practice (II). Then, as a matter of law in the context of the assignment of monetary rights under UNIDROIT Principles, this paper examines what may happen to the legal relationship between the parties and what practical considerations need to be taken by them when the obligor has legal defenses against the assignor, when successive assignments are made by the assignor, when the obligor exercises against the assignee its right of set-off before receiving the notice of assignment, when the assigned right does not exist at the time of the assignment, when any payment is received from the obligor before the notice of assignment is given, and finally when the obligor becomes insolvent or refuses to pay.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.113-133
• /
• 2015

This article reviews some recent decisions of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the recognition and enforcement of several South Korean arbitral awards. It explains the implementation of the New York Convention in the PRC and in particular the so-called Report System under the current Mainland Chinese law and judicial practice. It identifies some deficiencies in the People's Courts' approaches to the application and interpretation of the New York Convention and argues that the Mainland Chinese courts should adopt the pro-enforcement principle in the determination of the relevant issues under the New York Convention. It proposes further enhancement of the Report System and that the current categorization of 'domestic, foreign-related and foreign' in the context of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards needs to be further reviewed and clarified by the SPC. Last but not the least, it recommends some steps that South Korean parties should take to enhance the enforceability of South Korean Arbitral Awards in Mainland China.