• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.89-105
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the issue of party autonomy in arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreement has been interpreted somewhat differently from general contracts because its legal characteristics are not purely contractual by nature. For example, some legal scholars insist that an arbitration contract is more about an agreement on a process of dispute resolution than a creation of rights and obligations to avoid litigation. Party autonomy was discussed in diverse legal perspectives including contract of adhesion, VKI principle, and separability of arbitration clause. These three legal perspectives are discussed to set the legal relationship between party autonomy and protection of consumers in consumer arbitration. In addition, it was discussed how legal defects in the formation of an arbitration contract can influence the party autonomy. The legal defects that were discussed to analyze the relationship between arbitration agreement and party autonomy included misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, duress, and undue influence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.117-136
• /
• 2007

Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the international private law and the international commercial arbitration. The purpose of this article is to make research on the party's autonomy principle for the international commercial arbitral awards. For this purpose ist to analyse regal issue the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility of $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$ relating to the party autonomy. In this Article ist dealt with Art. 29 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act in comparison with Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure provides equally. "The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with such 'rules of law' as chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules." The term 'rule of law' used to describe the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$. Unlike Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para.1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Act, Art. 29(1) of the Korean Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with the 'law' chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. However the majority view in Korea takes the position that the term 'law' should be interpreted broadly so as to encompass 'rules of law' at UNCITRAL Model Law and the German Code of Civil Procedure.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.89-120
• /
• 2006

If the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue in international business transactions, it is the key point how we shall determine the applicable law by national rules for the conflict of laws, or by other methods. The argument in determination of the applicable law to the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement is related to regal nature of the arbitration agreement. As there are foreign factors in international arbitration, therefore we must consider such an aspect. Besides, we have to examine whether the general theory of contract is universally applicable to the arbitration agreement. Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the arbitration agreement. However, it is a difficult problem to recognize the applicable law chosen by the parties, whether it is based on any regal standard(for example New York Convention or the private international law or the essential quality of the arbitration agreement). In the light of the actual transactions, when the parties don't make a choice of the applicable law expressly, it will finally come down to presuming the party's implied intent. Nevertheless, finding the implied intent is a difficult problem. Some argue that we shall presume the choice of applicable law by an objective standard such as a place of arbitration, to prevent too much expansion of the scope of the recognition. But we need to review that this interpretation harmonizes with the principle of party autonomy. Especially, if we desire to detect the vital point where it is most closely linked to the arbitration agreement, we have to inquire how we will decide such a relation by means of any standard. However, as the existing Arbitration Act doesn't offer the solution to these issues, therefore we have to settle these problems through the development of adjudications and theories.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2015

This paper sets out a multi-dimensional approach that parties drafting a "hybrid clause" for their arbitration agreement can adopt, for purposes of maximizing enforceability, taking into account the multi-jurisdictional interplay between the seat Court, the governing law and the enforcement Court(s), as well as mandatory rules that can be present in the lex arbitrii, the governing law, and/or the law of the enforcement for a. This paper draws on both the co-authors' practice experience, as well as first principles of party autonomy in light of mandatory rules, based predominantly on the scholarship of Briggs and Nygh.

• 의정연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.69-101
• /
• 2019

본 연구는 정당의 경선을 거쳐 당선된 국회의원들이 그렇지 않은 의원들에 비하여 당론으로부터 이탈하는 경향성이 더 강하게 나타나는지 검증하는 것에 목적이 있다. 이를 위하여 제20대 국회 본회의 표결을 중심으로 의원들의 당론이탈 투표 경향성을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 경선을 통해 당선된 지역구 의원들이 당내 지명이나 전략 공천 방식으로 당선된 의원들에 비하여 당론으로부터 더 이탈하는 경향이 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 정당의 상향식 공천 방식의 도입이 확대될 경우 정당의 표결 응집력을 약화시키거나 의원의 입법 자율성을 강화하는 데 기여할 수 있음을 시사한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

This article discusses the validity of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that provides arbitration as one of several dispute resolution methods. The Supreme Court has held selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that is conditional invalidity since the judgement of 2003Da318 decided on Aug. 22, 2003: In the following judgements of 2004Da42166 decided on Nov. 11, 2004 and 2005Da12452 decided on May 27, 2005, the Court stated that the selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that stipulates to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation would be valid as an effective arbitration agreement only if a party elects and proceeds an arbitration proceeding and another party responses to the arbitration proceeding without any objection. The definition of arbitration agreement, the formation of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement, the summary of relative judgements and academic theories will be reviewed in order to examine the appropriateness of the series of judgements of the Supreme Court. Based on such reviews, this article will investigate the adequacy of the Supreme Court judgements from the perspectives of i) the principle of party autonomy, ii) the structure of dispute resolution methods, iii) legal provisions of Arbitration Act, iv) legal stability, and v) the policy to revitalize the use of arbitration. At conclusion, this article will suggest the change of precedents of the Supreme Court's judgements with regard to the selective arbitral agreement.

• 의정연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.69-106
• /
• 2021

본고는 대통령제와 정당기율이 강한 정당들로 구성된 양당제의 결합이란 제도적 요인에 초점을 맞춰, 민주화 이후 한국에서 여야 간 극심한 정치적 갈등 및 대립이 지속될 수밖에 없었던 원인을 설명하고자 한다. 그리고 대통령제와 정당기율이 약한 양당제가 결합된 경우로 미국을, 대통령제와 정당기율이 강한 다당제가 결합된 경우로 칠레를 각각 들고 어떻게 양 사례에서 협치가능성이 제고될 수 있었는지 분석할 것이다. 나아가, 이 비교 분석을 통해, 한국의 경우 역시 협치가능성 제고를 위해선 정당체계 변화를 수반하게 될 일련의 정치개혁들, 즉 개별 의원들의 자율성을 강화시켜줄 당조직상의 분권화 혹은 민주화나, 다당제를 추동해낼 결선투표제의 도입 혹은 비례대표제의 확대 등이 요구됨을 그 실천적 함의로 제안하려 한다.