• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.65-88
• /
• 2019

The ICC International Court of Arbitration ('the ICC') has published the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration ('2019 Revised Note) which came into force on the 1st of January 2019. The 2019 Revised Note is aimed at providing parties and arbitral tribunals with practical guidance regarding the conduct of arbitrations pursuant to the ICC Arbitration Rules as well as the practices of the ICC. Unless otherwise stipulated, the 2019 Revised Note applies to all ICC arbitration cases, regardless of the version of the ICC Arbitration Rules, in accordance with which they are conducted. The most noteworthy amendment is the introduction of provisions on a new mandatory transparency system by setting forth the publication of the arbitration case data and arbitral awards, maintaining the rule stipulating the provision of information regarding arbitral tribunal under the ICC 2016 Note. Among others, the 2019 Revised Note provides that parties and arbitrators in ICC arbitrations accept that ICC awards made as of the 1st of January 2019 may be published, excluding some exceptions. Under this circumstance, this paper i) explains five amendments of the 2019 ICC Revised Note, ii) examines major issues regarding the publication of information of arbitral tribunal and awards, iii) makes a comparative analysis of that attitude of 11 international arbitration institutions, and lastly iv) suggests recommendations for the Korean arbitration community.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.173-191
• /
• 2018

MFN provisions in investment agreements have been a tool for equitable treatment between foreign investors with different nationalities. This non discriminatory principle has been pursued by the host states for further investment promotion. However, it may be abused to bring the situation of so called "ISDS forum shopping" which might harm the stability and predictability of investment agreements by unexpectedly extending the scope of obligations. While some investment arbitral tribunals have interpreted the scope of MFN provision very broadly to allow the ISDS forum shopping, both procedural and substantive provisions have been invoked. To prevent any chaos of unclear boundary of MFN provision, some explicit MFN restrictions which would limit the scope of MFN provision are needed. Indeed, some investment agreements have included these MFN restrictions. Specifically, MFN restrictions deal with both procedural or substantive provisions to prevent ISDS forum shopping. According to the lessons from the recent examples of MFN restrictions, there must be a careful consideration on the benefits and costs of having a certain type of MFN restriction as the parties can be the host state and the home state of their investors at the same time.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.115-137
• /
• 1999

The UNCITRAL, during its thirty-two session in 1999 discussed certain issues and problems identified in interactional commercial arbitration practice. The issues discussed include certain aspects if conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; arbitability ; soverign immunity ; consolidation of more than one case into one arbitral proceedings ; confidentiality of information in arbitral proceedings ; rasing claims in arbitral proceedings for the purpose of set-off ; decisions by "turncated" arbitral tribunals liability of arbitrators ; power by the arbitral tribunal to award interest ; costs of arbitral proceedings ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the state of origin. Among those issues discussed, most of States agreed that the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the State of origin should have priority over other issues. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues, possibly indicating whether further work should be towards a legislative text (such as a model legislative provision or a treaty) or a non-legislative text (such as a model contractual rule).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.141-164
• /
• 2013

The current Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) ${\S}37(2)$ requires that a formal copy of an arbitral award or a duly certified copy thereof and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof be produced for the recognition and enforcement of a arbitral award. But as the KAA provides that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award to which the New York Convention applies shall be granted in accordance with the Convention, the duly authenticated original award should be produced instead of a formal copy in that case. The provision on the documents to produce for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is set to establish a reasonable and transparent standard and to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of awards by prohibiting parochial refusal of the recognition and enforcement on the grounds of formalities. Therefore it is necessary to simplify those documents according to the internationally acknowledged standard. It would be desirable to amend KAA ${\S}37(2)$ to require only "the original arbitral award or a copy thereof" without authentication or certification and a translation into Korean without any condition, adopting the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2007

Ever since franchising emerged in the industry of distribution, it has been growing explosively in the U.S.A. and all other countries as well. It is a method of expanding a business by licensing independent businessman to sell the franchiser's products and/or services or to follow a format and trade style created by the franchiser using the franchiser's trade marks and trade names. Franchising is a form of business that touches upon many different areas of law including, but not limited to, general contract law, general principles of commercial law, law of intellectual property, competition law, fair trade practices law and other industry specific laws e.g., the Fair Practices in Franchising Act in Korea. Arbitration is a long established, legally recognized procedure for submitting disputes to an outside person(s), mutually selected by the parties, for a final and binding decision. Despite its merits as an alternative dispute resolution, it has been criticized, on the other hand, particularly by franchisees' attorneys on the ground that even though it is required to protect the franchisees against the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements because of the franchisees' paucity of bargaining power vis-a-vis the franchiser, arbitration cannot afford it. Until recently, however, little has been written about the legal issues pertaining to franchise agreement and arbitration clause contained therein in Korea. This treatise reviews the cases and arguments in relation to the subject especially of the U.S.A., which have been accumulated for decades. The issues addressed herein are the pre-emption by the FAA, the disputes to be arbitrated, the selection and qualification of arbitrators, the place of arbitration hearings and the evidentiary rules applicable, the expenses of arbitration, theory of fiduciary duty and the like, all of which are relevant to franchise agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2005

Since the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration was signed by the Governments of South and North Korea last year, there has been quite a few discussions on the way for implementing the Agreement in both public and private sectors. The Department of Justice of South Korea was quite active in making the draft of arbitration rules representing the South Korean views in alliance with the Department of Reunification of South Korea and recently held an informal seminar to preview their draft. On the other hand, the Korea Arbitration Association, a main body of commercial arbitration which are composed of professors and lawyers, were carefully watching the steps and the draft made by the Department of Justice. The reasons are to assure that not only shall the commercial arbitration rules comply with comment norms of international arbitration but shall it be made to meet the needs of enterprises investing in the Special Economic District of Kaesung City in North Korea. The concerns of the Korea Arbitration Association can be accomplished if the Department of Justice would modify the provisions pointed out in the seminars. Five general principles shall be brought into the attention in promulgating the commercial arbitration rules. First, it should comply with the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration signed by South and North Korea. Second, it should accept common rules contained in UNCITRAL arbitration rules. Third, it should boost the promptness of proceedings when a case was filed. Fourth, it should feature unique aspects of trade between South Korea and Korea by differentiating it from purely international trade between a country and a country. Lastly, it should combine the respective rules of both South and North Korea, currently in effect. With the above five principles accomplished, it should be noted that the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration the upper authority of arbitration rules, mandates the following features. It declared that arbitration be processed by three arbitrators. Single arbitrator is not permitted. Arbitration can be adopted even if an arbitration clause does not exist in an agreement by the parties, provided that the dispute arose out of the scope of the Agreement on investment Guarantee signed by South Korea and North Korea. It excluded quick and simplified procedures even if the amount of claim in arbitration is minimal. All the procedures should take a formal procedure. It let the double administration offices operate. One is to sit in Seoul of South Korea and the other is to sit in Pyongyang of North Korea. This would intimidate the fastness of procedures. With the above principles and the features considered, each provision in the draft by the Department of Justice should be reviewed and suggested for change.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.165-177
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this comparative study is to compare and evaluate international arbitration and forum selection agreements. Recent decades have seen an unparalleled expansion of global trade and investment. Business enterprises of every description ann find themselves entangled in legal proceedings with foreign companies or government entities. Thus, the costs of these proceedings and the consequences of losing are often substantial. Almost, every international commercial controversy poses a critical preliminary question - 'where, and by whom, will this dispute be decided?' the answer to this question often decisively affects a dispute's eventual outcome. It can mean the difference between winning and losing. between de minimis damages and a multimillion dollar award. The same dispute can have materially different outcomes in different forums. Because of the importance of forum selection, parties to international contracts often include contractual dispute resolution provisions in their agreements. These provisions significantly reduce the uncertainties inherent in international commercial disputes, and can offer a substantial measure of partisan advantage. as a consequence, it is almost always advisable to include a contractual dispute resolution provision in any international contract. These provisions typically take the form of : (1) forum selection clauses, or (2) arbitration agreements.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.