• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.185-212
• /
• 2013

In this paper, a conceptual model of legal culture based on Ehrlich's "living law" theory and Cole's social-cultural explanation can explain the low utilization rates of arbitration of Japan and the high utilization rates of arbitration in the United States, simultaneously. This model highlights the clash between social norms and legal provisions in Japan. Japan has developed a two-tiered system of dispute resolution. At the official level, Japanese people accept the legal system imposed by the outside world. But, at a deeper level, they utilize diverse forms of informal dispute resolution mechanisms, such as reconcilement and conciliation, reflecting their own social norms. In contrast, there is no conflict between social norms and legal provisions in United States. This study may show that there are distinctions between American-style arbitration and Japanese-style arbitration, reflecting their own respective social norms. The question of reconciliation between the American style of arbitration and the Japanese style of arbitration can be resolved by an international arbitrator.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.71-92
• /
• 2012

The significant increase in international trade over the last few decades has been accompanied by an increase in the number of commercial disputes between Korea and India. Understanding the Indian dispute resolution system, including arbitration, is necessary for successful business operation with Indian companies. This article investigates characteristics of India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act in order to help then traders who enter into business with Indian companies to settle their disputes efficiently. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act(1996) based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976, has a number of characteristics including the following: (i) this act covers ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration (ii) parties to the arbitration agreement have no option except arbitration in case of any dispute (iii) the parties can choose their own laws, places, procedures, and arbitrators (iv) the decision of the arbitrators is final and binding (v)role of the court has been minimized and (vi) enforcement of foreign awards is recognized. However, there have been some court decisions that have not been in tune with the spirit and provisions of the Act. Therefore, Korean companies insert the KCAB's standard arbitration clause into their contracts and use India's ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) Methods to strategically resolve their disputes. Additionally, Korean companies investigate Indian companies' credit standing before entering into business relations with them.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.47-76
• /
• 2021

India is one of the fast growing country in the world. For the acceleration of economic growth of India, it is indispensable for Indian government to construct infrastructure, such as railroad, airport, harbor, power plant, and water management system. For example, Modi, prime minister of federal government of India proclaimed that Indian government plans to construct 100 smart cities in 2015. In recent times, India is expected to be the largest recipient of Public-Private Partnership(PPP) type projects in the world. Owing to PPP, it is possible for India to pursue her objective to transform the whole economy into digital economy beyond agricultural society. One of major problem related with implementation of PPP type projects is the growth of disputes concomitant to the rising phenomena of PPP type projects in order to build infrastructure in India. Because of this, non-negligible number of projects has been cancelled during last two decades. This study investigates seven failure cases of PPP in India. Those include Nabi mumbai airport, Dabhol power plant, Munbai water project, and Kolkata subway project. Main types of dispute resolution are mediation or conciliation, dispute review board, arbitration, expert adjudication in PPP.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.55-77
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to make a research on the administration and practical problems of the arbitral organization called "uth-North Commercial Arbitration Commission". The Arbitration Commission shall be set up under the South-North Agreements officially called "reement on Settlement Procedure of Commercial Dispute" and "reement on Organization and Administration of the South-North Arbitration Commission" between the South and the North of Korea. A variety means of dispute settlement including friendly consultations, conciliation and arbitration called Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) will be used frequently and institutionally to settle commercial disputes and conflicts arising from economic transactions between the South and the North of Korea. Under the circumstances, it is becoming a problem of vital importance how to operate the Arbitration Commission for the prompt and effective settlement of the South-North commercial disputes. First of all, the South and the North of Korea should recognize the availability of prompt and effective means of dispute resolution such as arbitration and conciliation to be made by the Arbitration Commission would promote the orderly growth and encouragement of th South-North trade and investment, for which the following measures should be taken as soon as possible : 1. Enactment of the South-North Arbitration Rules. 2. Designation of the arbitral institution by North-Korean side. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) was already designated officially as the arbitral organization of South Korean side as of April 17, 2007. 3. Arbitration shall be held in the place where the respondent has his domicile, in case that both parties fail to agree as to the place of arbitration. 4. Permission of a third country arbitration in case that both parties agree to do so. 5. To become a member country of international arbitration agreements including the New York Convention.

• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

Whether an investor can invoke a dispute settlement procedure stipulated in other BIT based on the MFN clause in the original BIT is an important issue. There is a difference in the interpretation of MFN clause in which the scope of the treatment stipulates the slightly different contents for each investment treaty. Therefore, this study considered ICSID arbitration cases related to the applicability of MFN clause for investment dispute settlement provisions. There are two different approaches for the applicability of MFN clause by arbitral tribunals. At first, the expanded interpretation of the MFN clause can be applied to procedural regulations, in that the purpose of the investment treaty is to protect foreign investors and to ensure their status. So, foreign investors can invoke a BIT of a third country that is advantageous to them. Second, the limited interpretation of the MFN clause can not be applied to procedural regulations. Without explicit regulation, the term treatment can not be considered to include dispute resolution provisions. And the BIT that the host state has concluded with third country is a treaty that applies only to the contracting party, so it can not be used by foreign investors of other nationality. Therefore, this study suggests concretely stipulating the scope of MFN clause under the investment treaty, highlighting that certain restrictions should be applied to the MFN clause. Furthermore, it is required continually investigating and analyzing the database of the scope of MFN clause.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.3-19
• /
• 2020

With the advent of the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the U.S. and an increase in trade volume between the two countries, the possibility of commercial disputes has escalated among international merchants. It has been well-known that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution is an efficient way to resolve international commercial disputes. When arbitral awards are enforced in the judicial system, the court will inevitably have to be involved with the enforcement procedures. The court is a typical legal entity to confirm arbitral awards. Through a confirmation process, the winning party obtains the same legal status of final judgment rendered by the court. However, a winning party in arbitration will have to overcome a legal hurdle in the enforcement process of arbitral awards. This article aims to investigate how the courts control the arbitration practices and what the basic legal issues in the enforcement of arbitral awards are. The US Federal Arbitration Act is investigated, while relevant cases are reviewed and updated for legal analysis.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.99-119
• /
• 2019

In recent times, the volume of cross-border e-commerce has witnessed an upward trend and has been accompanied by increased disputes, with cross-border e-commerce being characterized mainly by low value and large volume issues. For this reason, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) was formed to carry out dispute resolutions in cross-border e-commerce. A virtual multi-door ODR platform for small value, cross-border disputes in e-commerce is then proposed in this paper. For a couple of decades, researchers have tried to employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Law. However, it turns out that they were faced with a couple of obstacles to integrate AI to Law since it is highly difficult to program AI to process the common sense of a human being. For example, AI cannot assimilate the affective side of a human being, and it is problematic to integrate a human being's common sense into the AI system. Considering this situation, this study puts forward an ODR model for cross-border e-commerce in the evolutionary perspective.