• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2012

Arbitration is an essential methods of settlement for disputes in international commercial transaction. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have been in force after adoption in 1976. Over the 30 years, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules have been modeled for domestic and international arbitration institutes for setting and revision on their arbitration rules. UNCITRAL Committee has published the revised Arbitration Rules which entered into force after 15 August 2010. Therefore new version of arbitration rules are substituted for the previous version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 since its enforcement. The revised arbitration rules of UNCITRAL have been changed in various items for convergence with new trends and modern practices on arbitration including information communication and technology. The revision of arbitration rules focused on resolving problems in practice and codifying best practice to enhance the efficiency of arbitration conducted under the rules. There are considerable in a number of important respects on the removing the restricted in writing requirement for information technology, adapting the multiparties arbitration, joinder arbitration, truncated arbitral tribunal and adjustment in terms and condition and construction simply. Also a number of provisions have been refined, varied and clarified with new articles included. Conclusively the new revised arbitration rules fill a number of gaps which became apparent in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 to bring into line with new modern practices of international arbitration rules in international commercial disputes. This paper focus on the study the problems and inspired points on significant revised provisions and its considerable points in arbitration environment. This paper is approaching to the comparisons of UNCITRAL revised Arbitration Rules 2010 with previous Arbitration Rules 1976 of UNCITRAL and International Arbitration Rules 2011 of KCAB.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2012

The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board ("KCAB") recently amended its 'International Arbitration Rules' and the 'Arbitration Rules', which became effective on September 1, 2011. Under the amendment, the 'Arbitration Rules' will be referred to as the 'Domestic Arbitration Rules' and in principle apply only to domestic arbitration cases. Accordingly, the amendment removed all of the provisions relating to international arbitration cases. In addition, under the amendment, the 'International Arbitration Rules' will automatically apply to all international arbitration cases unless the parties agree otherwise. The amended 'International Arbitration Rules' establish new expedited procedures for the international arbitration cases before the KCAB. The KCAB has also instituted additional changes related to international arbitration cases including reduction in the filing and administrative fees and appointment of prominent international foreign arbitrators on its panel. The remuneration for arbitrators has also increased to bring them more in line with the fees provided by other leading international arbitration institutions. While several problems remain, these most recent revisions must be seen as a step in the right direction for the KCAB.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.159-176
• /
• 2012

The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) recently revised its International Arbitration Rules in a way that reflects its efforts to advance its procedures, leading directly to improved competitiveness as an arbitration institute. Apart from certain limitations, the KCAB's international arbitration rule revision introduced several new arbitration mechanisms, including fast-track arbitration and an empowered administrative office. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) released a revised set of arbitration rules (ICC Arbitration Rules), which have been said to be probably the most consulted-on arbitration rules ever. Even though the changes codify existing ICC court practice and add to the 1998 rules only provisions felt necessary in light of input from the users of arbitration, some of the changes will have huge implications for future aspects of arbitration mechanisms, especially those of KCAB. Although it remains to be seen what impact the ICC Arbitration Rules will have in practice, the new rules have been well received by the arbitration community and represent a modern set of provisions consistent with the current needs of the users of international arbitration. That is why, here in the Korean arbitration environment, further research is needed on the possibilities of introducing several elements of the revised ICC Arbitration Rules to improve the speed and cost efficiency of international arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.33-54
• /
• 2008

The KCAB enacted their new international arbitration rules(the KCAB rules) in 2007 wheres The CIETAC revised their arbitration rules(the CIETAC new rules) in 2005. This article investigates some practical problems on both rules respectively and helps trading companies to proceed arbitration by these rules. This study finds some problems as follows. There are the following problems in KCAB rules. First, application fee is too expensive fee. So KCAB should cut down their application fee. Second, if there is no agreement on number of arbitrators, the arbitration is processed by sole arbitrator. But it is very difficult for sole arbitrator to process international arbitration due to characteristics of international arbitration such as complexity of case and a large sum of claim. Third, a period of selection of arbitrator is long. In view of developing of communication means, this period is needed more short. In the meantimes, there are the following problems in CIETAC rules. First, though the CIETAC new rules enlarges the right of parties autonomy such as selection of arbitration rules or revise of it, China arbitration Act stipulates a institute arbitration which restrict partie's autonomy. Second, if there is no agreement on arbitrators, the CIETAC appoints chair of tribural in three arbitrators ion or sole arbitrators. is processed by sole arbitrator. Third, a draft of arbitral award is checked by the CIETAC in advance. Especially, the two latter problems is possible for foreigners to have doubts of fairness of CIETAC arbitration. Becuase the CIETAC is not a complete independent private institution. Consequently, I suggest that Korean trading companies should examine problems of these two arbitration rules carefully, and select a most appropriate rules for settlement of their disputes with Chines companies.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.125-144
• /
• 2007

The objective of this study is to find out whether Korean companies which are doing a lot of commercial transactions with Indian companies can consider appointing ICA as a trustworthy institution and using ICA arbitration rules as a governing arbitration rule, when a dispute between Korean companies and Indian companies occurs. Up to now, in the case of dispute with Indian companies, Korean companies are hesitant to utilize ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a alternative dispute resolution, owing to lack of understanding on its rules. But, it is obvious that Korean companies which come to have better knowledge on ICA and its rules may consider more positively using ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a dispute resolution rather than using other arbitration institutions like ICC and KCAB etc. in the case of disputes with Indian companies because ICA arbitration rules are very objective and similar to other arbitration rules like ICC rules as well as KCAB(Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) international arbitration rules which are frequently being used by Korean companies and also have other several advantages like cheaper cost of arbitration and fast track arbitration procedures. In conclusion, ICA and its rules can also be recommended as a public-trustworthy arbitration option if Korean companies want to resolve some dispute cases with Indian companies.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.23-42
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to analyze the characteristics of Vietnam's arbitration system and to present measures that companies can utilize in practice. This research considers KCAB International Arbitration Rules, focusing on amendments to the Decree on Vietnam Commercial Arbitration Act and amendments to the VIAC Arbitration Rules. To sum up some features, the decree on the Commercial Arbitration Act simplified the registration procedures for arbitration centers and their branches and made the publication of court decisions and the recognition of the approval and execution of foreign arbitration courts, thereby enhancing transparency. First of all, the decree on the Commercial Arbitration Act simplified registration procedures for arbitration centers and their branches. In addition, the court strengthened transparency by officially announcing court judgments, recognition, and decisions. Next, there are some points to note in the arbitration rules of the VIAC. First of all, the rules of expedited procedure lack clarity. Next, parties should make a separate document for counterclaim and submit it with a statement of defense. In addition, the arbitral language may choose multiple languages by the Arbitral Tribunal unless the parties agree. Therefore, companies need to take a closer look at their understanding of the international arbitration system, which is mainly used in international disputes, and the characteristics of the Vietnamese arbitration system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.53-74
• /
• 2019

Due to the increasingly popular dissatisfaction regarding the inefficiency of arbitral proceedings, the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration, also known as the Prague Rules, was launched in December 2018, with the purpose of increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings by encouraging arbitral tribunals to take a more proactive role in conducting their procedures. In this article, the provisions of the Prague Rules are examined, in light of those of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, in order to determine the efficacy of the Prague Rules on enhancing the efficiency in arbitral proceedings. The author concludes that more specific and detailed provisions, with respect to what the Rules means by such a "proactive arbitral tribunal," should have been explicitly included in light of the Rules' repeated emphasis on such. Also, the prospective outlook on the Prague Rules is not entirely clear as the text does not appear to fill in the gaps in other widely utilized arbitration rules or to supplement them in a satisfying way. However, given that only a short amount of time has passed since the launch late last year, only time will reveal how effective the Prague Rules will be in increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings, in accordance with its intended effect.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.121-151
• /
• 2006

As globalisation extends its effect and particularly following China's accession to the World Trade Organization(WTO) in 2001, ever greater numbers of international transactions will feature a Chinese party. China has certainly made efforts in recent years to rectify law problem. While conducting business in China, foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals and companies. As foreign businesses invest in the extraordinary market opportunities in China, international arbitration has also become the preferred method for handling disputes with Chinese partners or with other foreign corporation over operations in China. The new Arbitration Rules of the International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) came into force on 1 May 2005. The new rules represent a major overhaul of CIETAC arbitration procedures and are sure to enhance CIETAC's position as a leading player in the resolution of China-foreign business disputes. The changes are significant for all companies doing business in China. So, this article investigated some amendments on the basis of 2000 Rules.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.125-154
• /
• 2012

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published revised rules of arbitration, which come into force on 1 January 2012 (the ICC Rules 2012). The ICC Rules 2012 apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 January 2012, unless the parties have agreed to submit their arbitration to the rules in effect on the date of their arbitration agreement (Article 6(1)). The ICC Rules 2012 explicitly require both the arbitrators and the parties to make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. The changes will force participants to define more aspects of their claims and outline the merits of the dispute earlier on in the process. The Rules also contain new penalties for behaving in a way that undermines the process's efficiency. The new Rules permit the tribunal, when making allocating costs, to take into account the extent to which each party has conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Entirely new provisions relate to the emergency arbitrators, case management, and multi-party arbitrations. The ICC Rules 2012 take into account developments in arbitration practice and procedure, and in information technology, since the last revision of the rules in 1998, the aim being to provide modern and flexible procedures that promote efficiency in the arbitral process.