• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2016

Recently, China has brought many political, economical, and ideological changes in order to complete the "socialistic market economy." In terms of legal system, they make much effort to seek compatibility and stability of law and order. China recognizes that the breakdown of corruption, which is rampant in society, is an essential short-cut for national development. To realize anti-corruption reformation, it strengthens the supervision of relatives and close officials of high-ranking government officials. Recently, China has suffered from expanded trade disputes internationally and has also experienced severe management-labor conflicts domestically due to economic recession. From 2012 onward, civil lawsuit and other litigations have increased sharply. Also, they face severe conflicts in the land system. It is expected that many disputes arise due to speculation on rural housing. Meanwhile, Mongolia expands the size of trade with Korea in mutual cooperation since their diplomatic relation in 1990 by entering more than 20 treaties and agreements. As Mongolia has rich natural resources and Korea is equipped with advanced science and technology, the two countries have opportunities to develop mutually beneficial cooperative relations. Recently, the arbitration system has attracted attention instead of litigation as a means of dispute settlement in line with the expansion of trade between Korea and Mongolia. This study would be helpful to figure out desirable methods for dispute settlements in case of trade disputes among Korean companies that would advance into China and Mongolia.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2019

This study is aimed at drawing up improvement measures in connection with the resolution of claims, one of the major constraints in revitalizing South-North Korean economic cooperation. To that end, we first looked at the structure of South-North Korean economic cooperation and the institutional status related to resolving the claims. Also we analyzed the current status of the claims in the process of promoting South-North Korean economic cooperation by companies and the provisions of the claims between the parties in order to derive any problems. Through these research results, we were able to identify directions and implications for efficient improvement of the causes of several South-North Korean economic cooperation claims. First, at the corporate level, there is a need to create specific details of a contract for resolving disputes and to add additional third-party coordination functions in the relevant clause of the contract in preparation for the occurrence of a dispute. In addition, it is necessary to seek ways to advance jointly with corporations in China and other third countries in order to secure stability. Second, the government should continue to discuss ways of promoting South-North Korean commercial arbitration with North Korea so that follow-up measures can be completed as soon as possible. In addition, a two-track strategy is suggested to provide a practical negotiation channel at the private level. Also it is necessary to be active in persuading North Korea to join the international arbitration treaty in preparation for the activation of full-fledged economic exchanges.

• 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 Information Technology Services
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2022

Open Data is an essential resource for the data industry. 'Act On Promotion Of The Provision And Use Of Public Data', enacted on July 30, 2013, mandates public institutions to manage the quality of Open Data and provide it to the public. Via such a legislation, the legal basis for the public to Open Data is prepared. Furthermore, public institutions are prohibited from developing and providing open data services that are duplicated or similar to those of the private sector, and private start-ups using open data are supported. However, as the demand for Open Data gradually increases, the cases of refusal to provide or interruption of Open Data held by public institutions are also increasing. Accordingly, the 'Open Data Mediation Committee' is established and operated so that the right to use data can be rescued through a simple dispute mediation procedure rather than complicated administrative litigation. The main issues dealt with in dispute settlement so far are usually the rights of third parties, such as open data including personal information, private information such as trade secrets, and copyrights. Plus, non-open data cannot be provided without the consent of the information subject. Rather than processing non-open data into open data through de-identification processing, positive results can be expected if consent is provided through active rights processing of the personal information subject. Not only can the Public Mydata Service be used by the information subject, but Open Data applicants will also be able to secure higher quality Open Data, which will have a positive impact on fostering the private data industry. This study derives a plan to establish a rights processing platform to enhance the usability of Open Data, including private information such as personal information, trade secrets, and copyright, which have become an issue when providing Open Data since 2014. With that, the proposals in this study are expected to serve as a stepping stone to revitalize private start-ups through the use of wide Open Data and improve public convenience through Public MyData services of information subjects.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2012

No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.51-75
• /
• 2015

Administrative ADR to solve new problems has the characteristics of a new project, hence ADR is established and operated with a lack of human and material resources in the process of introducing administrative ADR. Therefore, it is preferred to resolve conflicts by less costly counseling and mutual agreement before mediation. When we try to settle the disputes through administrative ADR at the stage before mediation, it causes problems for the neutrality and impartiality of the dispute settlement procedures. In this case administrative ADR systems should introduce devices that ensure the impartiality of the process. In some issues becoming social problems, relevant administrative agencies are inclined to establish ADR systems. If ADR systems become available, a person who may use ADR services may have some trouble grasping ADR institutions because he/she can hardly distinguish their business affairs. By subdividing administrative affairs, when the disputes have the issues that touch on various fields of the affairs, parties in the disputes have to take ADR procedures one by one in all ADR-related institutions. This may lead to too heavy a burden on the disputing parties, furthermore forcing them to give up the remedies of their rights. For more efficient ADR operations, it is necessary that the institutions which set up and operate ADR systems should actively exchange and cooperate with one another. They need to forge and strengthen the solidarity between administrations and courts. The administrative agencies which run ADR themselves have to build up the devices for preparing human resources and material facilities for administrative ADR.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.369-387
• /
• 2012

Throughout intensive negotiations on the KORUS FTA and even after its ratification on March 15, 2012, ISD (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) has been at the center of many controversies within the FTA. Although the original function of the ISD is intended to be a protectional measure for foreign investors, there have been many foreign investors who tried to use the ISD as a tool to attack a government and nullify the public policy demanding tremendous amount of compensation. Many of the NAFTA ISD cases including Ehtyl v. Canada and UPS v. Canada demonstrate such a behavior by foreign investors. It is the right time for Korean government to conduct in depth studies on NAFTA ISD cases because the precedents provide invaluable insights including the legal reasoning by the decision making authorities including ICSID and UNCITRAL. The lessons we would learn from those cases would prepare Korean government for expected ISD claims by foreign investors and enable the government to maximize its efficiency in policy making process under a new international trade environment, the KORUS FTA.

• Journal of Internet Computing and Services
• /
• v.21 no.5
• /
• pp.9-20
• /
• 2020

This study redefines the networks' connection behaviors and the terms confusion over the settlement in Netflix-SK Broadband's dispute through domestic and foreign legal references. Conflict parties, academics and the media use the terms "interconnection fee" or "Access fee" without uniformity, and in some cases mixes for strategic purposes. The use of different terms for the same phenomenon (or vice versa) has a high need for research in that it makes it difficult to reach a unified approach to the problem, to discuss it productively and rationally, and, moreover, to resolve disputes. Therefore, this study cross-referenced/analyzed terms related to network utilization and connectivity, namely "Use", "Access", "Interconnection" and thus cost-related terms as a counter-pay. In addition, it suggests that interconnection fees and access fees should be used separately, and allows them to function as a starting point in resolving future ICT sector issues. As a result of this study, the price against the network access/use between Netflix and SK Broadband is access fee or retail price, and proposes to be used uniformly in the term "interconnection fee" only for fees incurred in interconnection between ISPs that possess or operate networks.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.377-413
• /
• 2004

North Korea and South Korea agreed to refer their investment disputes to arbitration by adopting' Agreed Minutes on Procedures of Settlement of Commercial Disputes' on 16th December 2000. According to the Agreed Minutes, the two Koreas were to establish an arbitration commission within 6 months after the Agreed Minutes had been signed. In 2002, North Korea enacted laws to draw interest of foreign tourists to Mountain Kumgang and to boost investment into the region of Kaesung as it provided in those laws that commercial disputes should be settled by arbitration or judicial procedures. In October 2003, the two Koreas succeeded in adopting another Agreed Minutes as to the establishment and functioning of North-South Arbitration Commission. The fact that the two Koreas have agreed to establish an arbitration commission is meaningful since they are leading their lives quite differently in political, social, and economic sense for more than a half century. Although there still remain doubts as to the North Korean policy on nuclear matters, an arbitration commission could be a cornerstone for the set-up of the dispute settlement system between the two Koreas and a great help for investors from South Korea to pursue their possible legal claims as North Korea is eager to invite South Korean businessmen and other foreign investors to invest in its special economic areas. According to the Agreed Minutes of 2003, the two Koreas are going to adopt procedural rules for the arbitration commission. It will be a great challenge for them to agree on specific issues as to the operation of the arbitration commission. They have to set up a rester of arbitrators respectively and may have to enact or revise their own arbitration laws and rules reflecting the Agreed Minutes of 2000 and 2003. It is quite welcome that the two Koreas have agreed to set up an arbitration commission rather than resort to political or diplomatic means to settle their disputes. The success of the arbitration system between the two Koreas will make sure the safety of investment environment in the northen part of the Korean Peninsula and will bring the peace to the Korean peninsula earlier than expected.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. Contracting parties who have made a valid arbitration agreement will submit a dispute for settlement to private persons(arbitrators) instead of to a court. Arbitration may depend upon the agreement of the private parties, but it is also a system which has been built on the law and which relies upon that law in order to make it effective both nationally and internationally. That is to say, arbitration is wholly dependent on the underlying support of the court. The complementarity of the courts and of the arbitrators is a well-established fact; they seek for the common purpose, the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. Most states' laws contain the provisions which have been set for the supportive role of the courts relating to arbitration; (1) the enforcement of the arbitration agreement(rulings on validity of the arbitration agreement), and the establishment of the tribunal at the beginning of the arbitration, (2) challenge of arbitrators, interim measures, and intervention during evidence in the middle of the arbitral proceedings, (3) filing of the award, challenge of the arbitral award, and recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award at the end of the arbitration. Most international instruments and national laws concerning arbitration believe that authoritative courts should play their power not to control and supervise arbitration but to support and develop the merits of arbitration at most. 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law also expressly limit the scope of court's intervention to assist arbitration, not to control it.