• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제23권6호
• /
• pp.113-130
• /
• 2019

Purpose - This paper investigates applicability of blockchain based bill of lading under the current legal environment. Legal requirements of electronic bill of lading will be analyzed based on the Rotterdam Rules and recently enacted UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. Using comparative analysis with the previous registry model for electronic bill of lading, this paper examines the advantages of blockchain based bill of lading. Design/methodology - This research reviewed previous efforts for dematerializing bill of lading with its limitation. Main features of blockchain technology which can make up for deficiencies of registry model also be investigated to analyze whether these features can satisfy the requirements for the legal validity of the negotiable electronic transport record or electronic transferable records under the Rotterdam Rules and the MLETR. Findings - Main findings of this research can be summarized as follows: Blockchain system operated in an open platform can improve transparency and scalability in transfer of electronic bill of lading by assuring easy access for transaction. Distributed ledger technology of blockchain makes it more difficult to forge or tamper with transactions because all participants equally shares identical transaction records. Consensus mechanism and timestamp in a blockchain transaction guarantee the integrity and uniqueness of a transaction. These features are enough to satisfy the requirements of electronic transferable records under the Rotterdam Rules and MLTER. Originality/value - This study has significance in that it provided implications for the introduction of electronic bill of lading by analyzing whether the blockchain based electronic bill of lading model meets the legal requirements under the current legal system prepared prior to the introduction of blockchain technology, and by presenting the advantages of the blockchain based bill of lading model through comparative analysis with the existing registry model.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.179-195
• /
• 2009

필리핀의 중재제도를 규정하고 있는 법령은 다음과 같다. 즉 필리핀 민법(법률 제386호), 중재법(법률 제876호), 대체분쟁해결법(법률 제9285호), 국제상거래중재에 관한 국제 연합 국제상거래법위원회(UNCITRAL) 표준법 및 건설산업중재에 관한 대통령령(제1008호)이다. 2004년의 대체적 분쟁해결 제도(ADR) 에 관련된 필리핀 의회의 입법은 필리핀의 중재 실무와 절차에 광범위한 변화를 가져 왔다. 또한 국제중재실무에서 필리핀에 많은 도움을 주었다. 다른 한편으로는 상당한 변화를 가진 UNCITRAL 표준법의 채택과 국내 중재를 관장하는 법률속에 표준법 조항을 편입함으로써 필리핀은 분쟁해결의 대체안으로써 정책 결정의 실행에 대한 중재법의 인식과 ADR법에 있어서의 정책조문의 검토로 보다 실질적인 중재제도가 정착되는 기반을 조성하게 되었다. 국내에서 수행하고 있는 국제적인 중재는 아직까지는 비교적 적다고 생각된다. 그러나 ADR법 내에 규정된 강력한 ADR찬성정책과 ADR에 관대하고 특히 중재에 호의적인 대법원의 친중재적 판결로 인해 향후 수년내에 필리핀과 주변국과의 무역이 크게 증대될 것으로 전망된다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.357-369
• /
• 2006

All over the country tries to clarify the content of 'Public Policy' in recognition and implementation of Foreign Arbitral Awards : it makes comments of the international consensus of Geneva Convention(1927), New York Convention(1958) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Policy, and it takes a general view of domestic laws how they deal with Public policy and Foreign Arbitral Awards. Foreign Arbitral Awards should be appropriately respected and implementation by the courts of countries encourage parties in a legal procedure to refuse enforcement by invoking "Public Policy." In order to cope with such invocations, the purport of the above recommendation on Foreign Arbitral Awards should be internationally recognized and the exceptional circumstances should be restricted unless the International Court of Arbitral Awards is not established a Dr. Holtzmann/Schwebel brought forward. In this paper suggests the list of the exceptional circumstances. Korean Arbitration Law stipulates as the Civil proceeding Law did, "good morals and the social order of the Republic of Korea" as a ground for refusing enforcement of Arbitral Awards. Studies on counteraction against invocations of Public Policy to refuse enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards should be developed.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제9권3호
• /
• pp.287-304
• /
• 2007

Determination of the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic messages is an important element of the operation of many rules of law, particularly the timing of formation of the contract. In this paper, I reviewed interpretation and application of time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic records in electronic transactions under the UNCITRAL(United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law on Electronic Commerce, USA Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and Korea Electronic Transactions Act. Time of dispatch and time of receipt are effective when received. The sender has the burden to prove that the electronic record is sent successfully to the information process system of the recipient. Therefore, to safety electronic transactions, the sender needs to request a confirm notice for receipt to the recipient when the electronic record is sent like the provisions of UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce and Korea Electronic Transactions Act. By requesting the above, the sender is able to take precautionary measures for damage according to the failure of dispatch and receipt of the electronic records.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.68-83
• /
• 2019

Purpose - The UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (Model Law) is based on the principles of non-discrimination against the use of electronic means, functional equivalence, and technology neutrality underpinning all UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce. Investigating the disagreements between the Model Law and the Koran Commercial Act (KC Act), including the B/L Regulation, and suggesting the revision of the KC Act including the B/L Regulation, could be a valuable study. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the harmonization of Korean legislation regarding electronic bill of lading in compliance with the Model Law. Design/methodology - The Model Law is flexible to accommodate the use of all technologies and models, such as registries, tokens, and distributed ledgers: that is, blockchain. In 2007, the KC Act was revised to regulate electronic bills of lading to promote the widespread legal use of electronic bills of lading. In addition, The Regulation on Implementation of the Provisions of the Commercial Act Regarding Electronic Bills of Lading (the B/L Regulation) was enacted to regulate the detailed procedures in using electronic bills of lading in 2008. This paper employs a legal analysis by which this paper does find differences between two rules in light of technology neutrality and global standard of electronic bills of lading model. Findings - The main findings are as follows: i) the Korean registry agency has characteristics of a closed system. ii) The KC Act has no provision regarding control. iii) The KC Act discriminates other electronic bills of lading on the ground that it was issued or used abroad. Moreover, this study does comprehensive analysis of Korean Acts in comparison with the Model Law and, in particular, this study analyzes the differences between the KC Act and the Model Law by comparing article by article in view of the harmonization of the two rules. Originality/value - The subject of previous several studies was draft provisions on Electronic Transferable Records before completion of the Model Law; thus, these studies did not take into consideration the character of the Model Law as the Model Law was chosen at the final stage of legislation. This study is aimed at the final version of the Model Law. So, this study is meaningful by finding the suggestion and directions for the Korean government to revise the KC Act and the B/L Regulation in line with the Model Law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.79-101
• /
• 2012

In 2010, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) initiated work on the settlement of disputes in international e-commerce through online dispute resolution (ODR). The basic goal is to use ODR to resolve disputes with low value but high volume in international e-commerce. The background is that consumers have no way to solve their legal problems in this area. An ODR system is intended to create a new way to enforce their rights. However, the legal situations of the countries in the e-commerce sector, particularly in consumer protection, are very diverse. Thus, no reasonable model for conflict resolution is available. Some countries consider this as public policy and want absolute protection of their consumers. Other countries want to encourage freer e-commerce trading. This diversity of consumer protection policy is an obstacle to ODR. However, sooner or later, reaching an agreement is feasible because each representative is making a reasonable effort to reach the goal.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 지난 10월 26일 및 27일 양일간에 걸쳐 서울의 Grand Intercontinental Hotel에서 개최된 국제중재학술대회 ICC/KCAB/KOCIA Conference에서 발표된 것으로 외국 변호사들의 이해를 돕기 위해 우리나라 중재법의 주요 내용을 설명하되, 특히 뉴욕협약과 국제상사중재에 관한 유엔모범법과 차이가 있는 부분을 주로 설명하였다. 이 논문은 우리나라 중재법이 규율하는 분야 중에서 그 적용범위, 중재적격, 통지의 서면성, 중재합의의 형식, 중간구제조치의 집행, 중재의 준거법 및 중재인의 선정 등에 관하여 설명하였다. 또한 이 논문은 우리나라가 일본, 중국 및 우리나라를 포함하는 동북아무역과 관련한 분쟁에서 중재의 중심지가 되어야 할 것을 역설하고, 이를 위해서 우리나라 유일의 중재기관인 대한상사중재원이 중재인 및 사무국 분야에서 개선이 필요함을 주장하였다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.59-91
• /
• 2006

The Arbitration Act of Korea was promulgated in 1966. Since the promulgation of Arbitration Act of Korea, consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2002. Among the various set of amendments, those of 1999 were designed to accommodate the UNCITRAL Model Law on international Commercial Arbitration of 1985. Korea has acceded to special international conventions on dispute settlement such as the New York Convention of 1958 and the Washington Convention of 1965. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) administers the arbitration proceedings in accordance with its Arbitration Rules approved by the Korean Supreme Court. Since the establishment of the first Arbitration Rules in 1966. consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1981, 1989, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2004. The KCAB plans to enact the International Arbitration Rules, which will be available to disputing parties in addition to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In 2005, arbitration applications received at KCAB recorded a historic high at 213 cases, an increase of 22% from 175 cases in 2000. But in 2005, the total amount involved in the arbitration cases decreases to US$ 129 million, a decline of 63% from US$ 346 million in 2000. The KCAB should take the following measures for activating the commercial arbitration system: the globalization of KCAB, the advertisement of arbitration system, the security of qualified arbitrators, and the enhancement of the secretariat service. In conclusion, the KCAB should make efforts for the development of the arbitration system and for the upgrade of customer satisfaction. Moreover the KCAB should make further efforts to grow into a global arbitration institution as well as strengthening relations with international arbitration institutions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.19-36
• /
• 2017

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the writing requirements of arbitration agreement. In order to discuss the legal aspects of writing requirement on arbitration agreement in the U.S., it is necessary to delve into both the contractual aspects of arbitration agreement and statutory specifications of the writing requirements of arbitration agreement. Statute of frauds and parole evidence rule were reviewed and employed to find legal implications on the writing requirement of arbitration agreement. Relevant cases were analyzed to verify how the courts have been responded to the conflicts regarding the validity of the arbitration contract with respect to writing requirement. International treaties absorbed into the U.S legal system were also reviewed and commented to analyze their implications on the writing requirement of arbitration agreement, including the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and the New York Convention.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.55-85
• /
• 1998

Each of China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea is in international trade one of the major countries in Asia and has been influenced by the Chinese character culture and the Civil law system. All these countries have their own commercial dispute resolution system for international trade dispute and commercial arbitration mechanism in their countries. They are making their own effort to internationalize and improve their commercial arbitration system. Among these countries China enacted a new arbitration law already. At that time Chinese arbitration law was referred to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration for internationalization of Chinese commercial arbitration system. China also internationalized the panel of arbitrators by increasing the foreign arbitrators of the panel of arbitrators of CIETAC. These measures adopted by China will be the model of dispute resolution and the commercial arbitration system in other major countries in Asia.