• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.47-64
• /
• 2011

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) released online arbitration rules which apply the resolution of disputes over electronic commerce transactions, as well as other economic and trade disputes in which the parties agree to do. The evidence submitted by the parties may be electronic evidence created, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or magnetic means. Electronic evidence with a reliable electronic signature shall carry the same effect and probative force as a document with a hand-written signature. Where a case is tried in a tribunal, the arbitration tribunal shall conduct an online trial hearing using internet video conference or other electronic or computer communication means. Unless the parties have another agreement, summary procedure shall apply to cases where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 100,000 but no more than RMB 1 million, or where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 1 million and a party submits a written application for summary procedure after obtaining the written consent of the other party. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, fast-track procedure shall apply to cases where the amount in dispute does not exceed RMB 100,000 or where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 100,000 and a party submits a written application for fast-track procedure after obtaining the written consent of the other party. Notable features of the Online Rules are as follows; first, there is not detailed consideration for online arbitration. Second, communications between the parties and the tribunal are allowed only through the Secretariat. Third, elaborate provisions regarding the electronic submission and transmission of documents is provided for. Forth, various factors must be considered by the tribunal in deciding the evidence's reliability. Fifth, reasonable endeavours is levied on CIETAC to keep data communications secure and encrypted. Sixth, the tribunal has the right to investigate and collect relevant evidence. And finally different procedures are provided for in consideration of the various types of E-commerce.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography
• /
• v.32 no.spc4_2
• /
• pp.387-392
• /
• 2014

Prior to start the business of Cadastral Non-Coincidence, there is a difficulty in the boundary setting due to the border dispute between the business owners, because of inconvenient land using and problems and the exercise of the ownership about their shared land. Expected that the cooperation of the residents admission can be used as countermeasures, which lead to conclude in the agreement by converging various opinions, such as about preceding business promotion, property rights and stable boundary, into one submission. Consequently, the national stength can be competitive by the efficient land management; the land portion of utilized area would be increasing as well as the boundary would be more convenient and accurate. In this study, the Cadastral Resurvey is planned to be analyzed the complaints based on complaint resolution cases and problems associated with the Cadastral Non-Coincidence. Following to the result, we want to use it to analyze the actual situation of Cadastral Non-Coincidence in Gyeongnam, so as generated by the Cadastral Resurvey business in the future for efficiency in the business.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.59-69
• /
• 2022

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to provide information for other journals as well as the continuous development of distribution science research by confirming the globalization performance of the Journal of Distribution Science (JDS), the main journal of KODISA. Research Design, Data, and Methodology: A total of 863 papers published in JDS from 2011 to 2021 searched by scienceON were divided into 4 periods and analyzed under the headings of submission system, standardity, collaboration, and degree of achievement of publication goals. SPSS 24.0 and R 4.1.1 package were used to perform the publication frequency analysis, crosstab-analysis, keyword frequency analysis, and LDA topic modeling were performed. In addition, trend analysis with weight applied to each word was performed. Results: It was found that the ratio of English-written papers, which is the indicator of a journal's starndardity, is continuously increasing, and the ratio of overseas authors, which is the indicator of collaboration, is also continuously increasing. It was confirmed through keyword trend analysis by period and LDA topic modeling results - which were weighted to confirm the degree of achievement of the journal's publication goal - that the articles published by the journal has been in agreement with monthly research topic proposed by JDS. Conclusion: By examining the five criteria for globalization, it can be concluded that JDS's efforts for globalization are achieving significant results and providing effective directions for other academic journals. However, in order for JDS to become a top academic journal, it was suggested that efforts should be made to establish a system for collaborative research by domestic and foreign authors, as well as to provide a clear definition for the monthly research topics and classification of sub-topics.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.81-106
• /
• 2006

The Terms of Reference are one of the most distictive features of ICC Arbitration. No document of this type is required to be drawn up under the rules of any of the other major international arbitration institutions. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in Article 18 of ICC Rules of Arbitration, which results in the wide recognition of the Terms of Reference. As the volume of our international commercial transaction ranks almost ten in the world, the frequency using ICC Arbitration is expected to increase continuously. The Terms of Reference provide the parties and the arbitrators with an opportunity to identify and agree on procedural and other matters, such as the applicable law, the language of the arbitration and the timetable for the arbitration. They also afford the parties and the arbitrators to identify the substantive issues that are addressed in the arbitration and to delimit the precise scope of the Arbitract Tribunal's mandate. The contents of the Terms of Reference which are provided in Article 18(1) include the summary of parties claims, the list of issues and procedural rules. For the effects of the Terms of Reference, they are not intended to replace the parties' arbitration agreement. But they may in certain circumstances be regarded as a form of submission agreement. Article 18(2) provides that the Terms of Reference shall be signed by the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal, and requires the Arbitral Tribunal to transmit a signed copy of the Terms of Reference to the Court within two months of the date on which the file was transmitted to it by the Secretariat. The Court enjoys the power to extend the two-month time limit for the Terms of Reference on the reasoned request of the Arbitral Tribunal or on the Court's own initiative. Article 18(3) provides that if any of the parties refuses to take part in the drawing up of the Terms of Reference or to sign the same, they shall be submitted to the Court for approval. Article 18(4) allows the Arbitral Tribunal to extablish in a separate document a provisional timetable. This is a provision that encourages the acceleration of the arbitraction process. The timetable provided for therein is merely "provisional" and may be modified, as necessary, during the course of the arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.89-114
• /
• 2011

Environmental disputes not only possess the special characteristics of collectivity and plural value relativity but it also possesses the unique features of difficulty to prove cause and effect as well as the structural maldistribution of evidence and information. Therefore, the positive resolution of an environmental dispute can be brought about more easily with the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which can take the form of talks, compromises, as well as arbitration or mediation rather than through a trial process. Such being the case, this paper first looks into the problems and effectiveness of the arbitration system of environmental lawsuits and then takes an even closer look at Korea's environmental dispute arbitration system and finally offer some reform methods. In Korea, the environmental dispute arbitration system was implemented in 1991 and has been executed since then. Although this system does have positive features such as the high rate of coming to an agreement between the involved parties but unfortunately, most of the cases rely on decisions based on right and wrong which cannot but be far away from the intentions of the ADR system. It is heavily centered around claims regarding psychological compensation regarding noise and vibrations and the ratio of the actual amount of compensation is comparatively lower than the requested amount. In addition, with the limits in organization and manpower, it leads to a lack of professionalism as well as the problem of low usage with the low awareness rate. As reform measures against the aforementioned problems, this paper suggests the following. First, in order to activate the arbitration process more fully, it proposes aggressive usage of compulsory arbitration as well as submission to arbitration, while at the same time raising ADR professionals to fill in the missing gaps. Secondly, in order to overcome the problem of concentration of related cases, making representative lawsuits of environmental organizations would be a good idea. It also states that in order to make the compensation amount more realistic, it should go out of the across-the-board decision making process and reach a decision about the compensation amount that takes the individual situation's dispute into consideration. In order to boost the professionalism of the environmental dispute arbitration, it is necessary to reform the organization and manpower such as expanding the number of members of full standing, and increasing the professionalism of the examiners. Also, to increase the usage rate of the ADR system, the paper suggests stationing a civilian consultant regarding environment, or activating the compulsory arbitration which is the premise for public participation on the part of the residents.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• Analytical Science and Technology
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.183-192
• /
• 2007

The various environmental regulation directives such as RoHS (restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic products) and WEEE (waste from electrical and electronic equipments) are practically used as the technical barrier in international trade (TBT) of vehicles and electrical and electronic products recently. Regarding such an environmental regulation, Korea Research Institute of Standards Science (KRISS) organized a proficiency testing scheme to establish the reliability of measurement results produced by the relevant research institutes and test laboratories in Korea. Participants were 31 laboratories related to production of the electrical and electronic equipments and mobile vehicles. Two polypropylene samples of pellet type were employed as the proficiency testing materials (PTMs). Cadmium and lead were the analytes chosen among six components regulated in European Union (EU) RoHS directive. The PTMs were sent to the participants by post on September $1^{st}$ 2006, and deadline for results submission were October $10^{th}$ 2006. The results of each laboratory were evaluated in comparison with KRISS reference values using Robustic Z-score and Youden plot methods. The results of the various sample digestion methods were also compared. Most of participants reported good agreement within 10 % range of reference values. However, results from several laboratories showed significant biases from reference values. These laboratories should establish the quality assurance system for improvement of the measurement reliability.