• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.125-167
• /
• 2003

ADR program is designed to solve the problem such as the increase of suits and decision delayed. ADR program has the several significances, decreasing inappropriate cost as time and burden of courts, providing an approachable measure of relief and more efficient tool for settlement of dispute. Particularly ADR program satisfies the needs Intellectual property disputes need specialists that are versed in the subjected problem and, need to be souled quickly in confidence. And parties concerned are not good at the strict judicial procedure in courts, At this point, ADR program holds some advantages over court proceeding for intellectual property disputes. Specialists can be selected as arbitrators or mediator; Cofidentiality may be preserved; Flexibility allows settlement based on mutual commercial interests; Single solution is possible for multiple disputes involving parties from different countries. However, ADR program has not been properly used in. Korea, which is due to not only the lack of understanding the ADR program, but the poor number of filings and settlements. Intermediaries are not professional and also they do not take active hands in disputes. Sometimes, their fairness is asked as peacemakers. Eventually, it is said that this program is not enough to settle international disputes. To activate the ADR program, we can propose the ADR program annexed to court for example. And we can introduce the conciliation and arbitration to disputes in intellectual property. Traditionally arbitration has been a crucial issue in intellectual property disputes. In that intellectual property rights are granted by the local sovereign power, many legal systems in the past maintained the position that the existence, extent, meaning and application of such rights could only be definitively decided by the granting authority or the courts of that country. There is wide recognition that the arbitration of intellectual property is desirable. The law in most of the major countries has been changed in recent years in favor of arbitrability of intellectual property rights. We can also propose ADR on-line.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.69-80
• /
• 2003

Verifiable encryption is an encryption technique with which one can verify what has been encrypted even if one can not decrypt the ciphertext. This technique can be used in fair exchange to convince the counterpart of his or her receiving an item by presenting an encrypted form in advance. In this paper, a method that can guarantee the payment atomicity is proposed by applying verifiable encryption to an electronic cash system based on the representation problem. With the new method, the process of dispute settlement is improved in the fact that the trusted third party do not have to interact with the bank to resolve disputes. This method is also flexible in a sense that clients and shops can request for dispute settlement regardless of any deadline constraint. However, additional proof is necessary to apply verifiable encryption during payment. We discuss the security and the atomicity of our method, and compare ours with others.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.11
• /
• pp.129-157
• /
• 2006

With rapid social change, by culminating the social hazards and the safety problems about it are on the increase too. According to the needs for the safety the demand of the private guard & security provided the safety and security service against danger is also increasing. As the need for the safety is increasing, so recently the private guard & security industry is extended. Therefore the purpose of this study is to grasp and carry out researches into the legal structure on the Security contract, is to analyze the formation of contract and find out the ensuing problem in order to prevent or settle the dispute which is apt to occur between the specific client and the security companies. In order to minimize the dispute going with security relationship in particular, it is necessary that one should write down the agreed contents as the document explicitly to make a security contract with the parties. Hereupon in the plan which standardizes the security contract with each parties autonomously, it is suggested that this study should present the model of Dispute Resolution Clause Especially it is the best means that it is amicable consultation or negotiation as the effective way of settlement methods of private dispute arising from the concerned parties. In inevitable case it recommends the method which solves the dispute by means of an arbitration than litigation at administration of justice(in terms of jurisdiction). If the parties wish to settle the disputes by arbitration, they must come to an arbitration agreement in the form of a arbitration clause in the security contract. After the test and evaluation through application utilizing it in actual security field, the security standard contract regulates about it and this terms should widely apply a individual case to whole industry.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.27-44
• /
• 2024

The lack of consistency and predictability of arbitral awards in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement ("ISDS") mechanism has long been a subject of criticism. In international investment disputes, arbitral tribunals have frequently come up with different interpretations and results on similar investment agreement provisions. The arbitral tribunal's inconsistent decisions raised concerns not only among the parties to the investment dispute but also amongthe arbitral tribunals in other cases, which ultimately led to legal inconsistencies in international investment law. Arbitration awards may have some degree of disagreement in interpretation. However, the systemic inconsistencies that pervade ISDS risk undermining the purpose of the investment agreement system, which is to provide a predictable and stable framework to protect andpromote foreign investment while maintaining a balance with host state regulations. Therefore, this study proposes a plan to resolve this discrepancy and review standards for practical application. Reform of the ISDS mechanism could be a viable option to reduce, to some extent, the inconsistencies in interpretation, if not completely eliminate them. Reforms such as establishingguidelines, promoting cooperation between arbitral tribunals, and codifying the norms of the agreement can provide a means of reducing interpretive inconsistencies and strengthening the legitimacy of the ISDS mechanism. Reforming the ISDS mechanism will require all stakeholders to carefully consider the issues and the scope, nature, and feasibility of eachpotential reform.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.61-88
• /
• 2018

Myanmar has witnessed rapid economic growth in the 21st century. The cultural heritage of Myanmar (Burma) inherited from ancestors is law literature such as Dhammathat and Rajathat. Burma is a unique country in Southeast Asia in a sense that it already had a modern law system. For example, there has been a legal profession even in 12th century AD. According to Rajathat, lawyers were required to wear a uniform in court. Furthermore, lawyers and Judges participated in legal proceedings from the 15th century. As to the role of Dhammathat, there are conflicting views in the academic community. According to Professor Andrew Huxley, the profound literatures of Dhammathat had played an important role as a source of law in Burmese court in ancient times. Dhammathats have flourished in the struggle among the King, lawyers, and monks in old Burmese society. This customary law combined with Rajathat provided a guidance of legal proceedings in Burmese court, as well as village settlement. This traditional dispute resolution system reaches modern times in the form of Buddhist family law in Myanmar. Nowadays, the law system of Myanmar looks like a legal pluralism since the customary laws of Burma, as well as Shan and Arakan, are effective and co-exist with common law adopted at the colonial period. In recent times, Myanmar has enacted new arbitration laws (2016) in order to attract foreign direct investment.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.99-124
• /
• 2013

International commercial arbitration is a specially formed mechanism for the final and binding settlement of disputes arisen between contracting parties regarding procedures, structures or other contractual relationship agreed by them. It is a resolution system which is processed autonomously by arbitrators who are appointed by contracting parties without involving the national court. If the contracting parties want to settle their disputes by arbitration, there must be a valid agreement. With a valid agreement, the most important concern is which law(called as the substantive law) should be applied in order to determine the rights and obligations of both contracting parties in relation to the dispute. At this point, the substantive law is really important because it is applied to the dispute itself directly during proceedings as well as it plays an crucial role in scrutiny and enforcement of arbitral awards. This article discusses about the substantive law under international commercial arbitration, specially focusing on the regulations of the ICC rules of arbitration, which is the most widely used all over the world and UNCITRAL Model law, which most countries' rule and laws are based on. By discussing how these rules and regulations should be interpreted and applied, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners when they agree on an arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2010

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international trade and commerce has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution on international business transaction. Because the form of commercial dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem simultaneously. In this article, the author discusses various issues on the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral awards under Korean Arbitration Act, which is modeled after the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL of 1985. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Korean Arbitration Act admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958(commonly known as the New York Convention). Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of anther Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provision relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention consists of Article III, IV, V. In particular, Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the grounds for refusal of recognition foreign arbitral awards. The grounds are separated into two categories : One that abides by procedures and the others are based on national legal sovereignty. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of awards. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgement, the result is that arbitral of award holders are forced to institute domestic litigation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2014

Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly new ADR process dating back to the 1970s. Med-Arb capitalizes on the advantages of both mediation and arbitration, while eliminating many of their disadvantages. Mediation has the advantage of allowing for resolutions rather than decisions. Arbitration has the advantage of guaranteeing that the matter will be resolved when the procedure is over. In Med-Arb, the participants agree to be parties to mediation, and if the mediation comes to an impasse, a final settlement will be reached through arbitration. This study first explicates the origin and the development of Med-Arb in the United States. This study shows that the emergence of Med-Arb is benefited from the fact that arbitration has lost its own advantages ie, speed, cost-saving, and maintenance of an ongoing relationship between the disputants. Second, this study analyzes four cases in which Med-Arb is applied to various kinds of disputes as a tool of dispute resolution: labor disputes, entertainment disputes, will disputes, and international commercial disputes, consecutively. All those case studies show the generality of Med-Arb as a dispute resolution channel. Third, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages of Med-Arb. Finally, this study discusses the implications of Med-Arb. In particular it provides the universality of this hybrid form of dispute resolution in the East and West. For example, we show that China has its own distinctive Med-Arb system, where it has developed from ancient Confucian philosophy. Japan also emphasizes the role of an arbitrator who settles the disputes in the course of arbitration. The domestic arbitration rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) have a similar process in that arbitration contains an element of conciliation. With regard to the universal characteristics of Med-Arb, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of Med-Arb at a deeper level in the future. One caveat is that it is necessary to handle the issues of the neutrality of the mediator-arbitrator.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.59-81
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to find a solution to disputes in the process of producing digital music sources. At present, the center of the world music market including the domestic market has been completely transformed from the tangible musical record market to the intangible sound source market. Due to these environmental changes, the music production process becomes industrialized and specialized, causing conflicts of interest among the individuals in the process. First of all, this study examined changes in the music market which is the background of the dispute, identified the problems of the process and suggested solutions while summarizing the meaning and role of each process of producing a sound source that may arise during the sound production process. This study covers plagiarism between producers, copyright infringement of the creator against assistant creator caused by the industrialization and division of the production environment, issues related to the rights of sound engineers whose role and importance become bigger as acoustic technology develops and music genres become more diverse, and vertical hierarchy due to the formation of oligopoly by several distributors with huge capital. As a result of the study, it was concluded that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system is suitable for solving these problems. Specific methods of using ADR include activation of the dispute settlement system of the Korea Copyright Commission, active use of the arbitration clause specified in the standard contract, and recalculation of labor costs and earnings from copyright through mutual negotiations. This paper can be differentiated from previous studies in that it studied overall problems that might arise in the process of digital music source production and suggested ADR utilization as the solution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.613-630
• /
• 2004

Conciliation is one of the most effective ADR(alternative dispute resolution) which takes the place of civil procedure. It is achieved with disputants' independent will. The disputants negotiate each other, and make peaceful settlement. If a compromise is effected between the two, it regards the compromise as a judgement of the Supreme Court. This effect on the conciliation is afford a basis for the private autonomies. But nowadays, the practical use of the private autonomies is not thoroughgoing enough in our country. It is a matter of no uncommon occurrence for the member of a conciliation commission to form a conclusion about the dispute and to persuade the disputants to accept the conclusion. Even the judges have a tendency to conduct a conciliation like civil procedure. Under these circumstances, it's harsh to the disputants that a compromise in the conciliation has an effect like the judgement of the Supreme Court. So you should reconsider carefully the role or service of a conciliation commission. The role of a conciliation commission must be to guarantee an atmosphere of freedom, and for disputants to negotiate without restraint. So the members of a conciliation commission should make an offer the disputants the information on the members and proceedings of the conciliation. It will make the disputants have a firm belief that the members are fair and conciliation will be progressed in a fair. Moreover they have to notify the disputants of the estimated norms which is concerned in the dispute, too. It will facilitate the negotiation and compromise, and will justify claim preclusion(res judicata) which is based on Korean Civil Conciliation Law(Article 29) says that conciliation has the full force and effect of a civil judgement of the Supreme Court.