• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.67-89
• /
• 2016

An ADR arbitration system has a necessary value in the sports industry for settlement of disputes. Sports disputes should be resolved independently by enacting internal regulations within the basic principles of national law rather than treated as a civil action. If the dispute is not fair and transparent, it may cause distrust. Because an arbitration system has values such as speed, flexibility of economic decisions, professionalism of arbitrator and confidentiality of arbitration-related information, the efficiency of the arbitration system for conflict resolution has emerged recently. We have to assign sports experts to reactivate sports arbitration commission committees which existed from 2006 to 2009 in Korea. Many countries, such as the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, and Japan, which attain advancement of sports and the International Court of Arbitration establish and run their own sports arbitration agencies. However, Korea disbanded its sports arbitration commission committee for political and economic reasons. In 2012, after their disbanding, athlete Kim Yeon-kyoung came into conflict with Heungkuk Life over terms of free agent acquisition and international transfer certification. Finally they were able to settle those political conflicts. However if there had been related laws in Korea, they could have resolved those problems easily without international disputes. Practically, it would have been almost impossible for Kim Yeon-kyoung to win the dispute. But her problem became an issue after the London Olympics, so she could win. Although it is well for her to take an active role on the international stage, it left much to be desired on account of the intervention of political circles in order to resolve the conflict. If the sports arbitration commission committee in Korea had still been active, it could have come to a peaceful settlement domestically. Therefore we have to reestablish a Korean sports arbitration committee centered around experts of sports law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

In the case of multiple commerce contracts in commerce, as well as multiple contracts related to it, a solution for the merging of arbitration proceedings is necessary in order to ensure uniformity of dispute resolution. Since the arbitration proceedings are based on the parties' agreement, no merging of two or more arbitration proceedings may transpire unless all parties agree. Claims of merging in arbitration proceedings lead to problems such as lack of party autonomy, resulting from lack of consent of the parties to merging, and how to appoint an arbitrator in a multilateral arbitration proceeding. Many of the major arbitration bodies have recognized the significant benefits of the terms of consolidation, and have recently revised the Arbitration Rules to include or extend existing clauses to reflect the needs of the parties. This study introduces the merging provisions of several selected major arbitration rules, such as the ICC, Switzerland, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ACICA, and UNCITRAL rules, and looks at the main similarities and differences among the rules.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the Supreme Court decision of the United Kingdom in Jivraj v. Hashwani (2011) concerning the employment issue of arbitrators, falling within the exception of genuine occupational requirement under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, and nationality of arbitrators. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in Jivraj v. Hashwani, unanimously overturning decision of the English Court of Appeal. The facts of this case and the decision of the Court of Appeal have been widely discussed. The decision of the Supreme Court has been met with approval within the international arbitration community in London, having restored the legal position to that prior to the Court of Appeal's ruling. Thus, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal's finding that arbitrators are the employees of the arbitrating parties. Arbitrators were held to be genuinely self-employed, and therefore outside the scope of the Regulations or Equality Act(2010). As such, the anti-discrimination provisions are not applicable to the selection, engagement or appointment of arbitrators. Most importantly, the Supreme Court's finding that arbitrators are not employees removes the possibility of challenges to arbitration agreements on the grounds that they are in breach of the Equality Act. As a practical matter, parties no longer need to consider carving out nationality provisions when drafting arbitration agreements.