• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2016

International arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Asia is growing in popularity. Singapore has long been acknowledged as a regional arbitration center but Korea is now facing an increased demand as an arbitration center as well. As Singapore competes with Hong Kong and other international arbitration centers, and as Korea tries to become an alternative to Singapore, both Singapore and Korea have updated their arbitral laws and arbitration rules to reflect the current international arbitration trends. This paper examines the recent changes in the arbitration laws of Singapore and Korea, with an emphasis on recent changes in Korean arbitration laws that are designed to increase Korea's popularity as a regional arbitration center. Though Korea's reputation as an arbitration center is increasing, it is still not viewed as a major arbitration service provider. It is against this backdrop that Korea's international arbitration laws and rules will be viewed, with suggested changes to increase Korea's reputation as not only a regional hub but a center of international arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.45-80
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the method of arbitration agreement, the adoption and contents of the Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, and the standpoint and problem with reference to the new Convention's application to the method of arbitration agreement in New York Convention. Last year the UN General Assembly and UNCITRAL adopted a new Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts that makes agreements by electronic communications enforceable, including arbitration agreements under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral A wards (New York Convention). Aimed at enhancing legal certainty and commercial predictability where electronic communications are used in relation to international contracts, the provisions of the Convention deal with, among other things, determining a party's location in an electronic environment; the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications; and the use of automated message systems for contract formation. Under the New York Convention, arbitration agreements in international contracts must be reduced to writing before they can be enforced. But under the new Convention, an arbitration agreement made entirely in electronic form would be enforceable. The working group expressed overall support in favor of the inclusion of a reference to the New York Convention in the new Convention. However, one proposal was that the exclusions provided under article 2 of the new Convention might be too broadly worded to adequately accommodate the New York Convention. In conclusion, Korea's government authorities should take prompt measures to sign and ratify the new Convention, and declare on the scope of its application. Also Korea's arbitration institute should make preparation for the amendment of the arbitration act and arbitration rules in accordance with the new Convention.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2004

Currently major countries, including the USA, have developed and contrived to activate ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) in order to both choose effective means for dispute resolution and establish the reformation of the judicial system; thus meeting people's revamped expectations due to the rapid increase of, and diversification in, civil disputes. This is why there has been some haste in many countries to organize systems for this, so called, 'the Fundamental ADR Act' which regulates the essential structure to accelerate the use of ADR and strengthen the links with trial procedures. For example, in 1999 Germany revised it Civil Procedure Act, to allow for a pre-conciliation process in cases involving only small sums of money. Whilst, with regard to the Civil Procedure Act in France, new regulations have been introduced with regard to actions before either a suit or return to conciliation. In the United Kingdom, as far back as 1988, additions to the legal structure allowed for expansion of regulations applying to ADR. By 1999 the new ADR regulations were part of the legal structure of the UK Civil Procedure Act. The USA passed the federal law for ADR in 1998. Since then the world has tried to enact this model in UNCITRAL on international conciliation. When we consider this recent trend by the world's major countries, it is desirable that the fundamental law on ADR should be enacted in Korea also. This paper traces the object, and the regulatory content required, for the fundamental ADR law to be enacted in Korea's future. Firstly, the purpose of the fundamental ADR law is limited only to the private sector, including administrative and excluding judicial sector and arbitration, because in Korea the Judicial Conciliation of the Civil Disputes Act, the Family Disputes Act and the Arbitration Act already exist. Secondly I will I examine the regulatory content of the basic ADR Act, dividing it into: 1)regulations on the basic ideology of ADR, 2)those on the transition to trial procedures of ADR, and 3)those on the transition to ADR from trial procedures. In addition I will research the regulatory limitations of ADR.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.97-119
• /
• 2008

The reluctance of Latin American countries to practice international arbitration is not a new topic in international law. This reluctance historically based on Calvo Doctrine provoked not only the absence of Latin American countries from the major international commercial arbitration conventions, but obsolete national arbitration legislation. Recently, however, these countries have undertaken major steps showing that the region is no longer reluctant to practice international commercial arbitration. Most Latin American countries have ratified the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("Washington Convention") and the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration ("Panama Convention"). The majority of Latin American countries have also modified and adapted their national legislation on arbitration to the UNCITRAL model law. Even judiciary has been following this pro-arbitration. This article will focus on some of these factors provoking the acceptance of international commercial arbitration in Latin America to trace the common trends and characteristics in an attempt to understand better how international arbitration set on its place firmly. For this purpose we selected five countries, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela, to analyse legislations and jurisprudence. Latin America is ready to challenge any obstacles to promote arbitration as alternative methods of judicial resolution. There is an ever-increasing number of international arbitration in Latin America. Both practitioners and judiciary have shown desires to promote the resolution of disputes by arbitration and used the legal instruments to ensure that process interpreting and applying legislations for pro-arbitration. Even there remains Calvo Doctrine's culture in Latin America still now, it should be certain this culture will disappear from the conduct of international arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2014

The Arbitration Act of Korea entered into force on December 31, 1999. It was modeled after the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law to meet the goal of the internationalization of the arbitration system of South Korea mainly in terms of the System (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Act. In general, a hearing of arbitration is made up of an arbitrator, claimant, and respondent. This is accomplished in a single core. The advantages of arbitration are low cost and confidentiality. In addition, there is the participation of experts and rapidity with a single core agent. However, under the current Arbitration Act, there is no provision expressly relating to the qualifications of arbitrators. This should be accomplished by the arbitration act enforcement ordinance. Following specific details of the 'party' in conjunction with all the provisions of the Arbitration Act, Article 1 should be revised in a timely manner so that "conflict of private law" covers cases in which a dispute between the parties is desirable. In addition, in Article 3 the phrasing of "also dispute 'judicial'" should be revised to over disputes between parties. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 40 are described in the Supplement and so it is preferable to address Supplementary Delete. In addition, this study will analyze ADR in Japan and present a plan to establish a law to resolve disputes outside of court in that country. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assist in the study of legislating fundamental law for alternative dispute resolution. In spite of this, there are many in business and academia who would like to modify the arbitration system in South Korea to improve its function. There is much interest in accomplishing this,so proposals for legislation should continue to be made.In order to accomplish this, the arbitration systems of developed countries such as the United States can be used as a model. It can be seen that despite the idea that the parties involved engage in arbitration autonomously, many elements of the process from the selection of the arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal are specified in legislation and thus it is necessary to develop legislation that will allow arbitration to perform its intended function. Any given arbitral tribunal can be specialized, typically in a case an arbitrator who is an expert in the field is selected. This helps to avoid complaints concerning the results of the arbitration. In the case of international arbitration, however, this provision is often not employed and instead it is necessary to provide a Schedule and Supplement concerning international arbitration. Finally, the promotion of the enactment of the Arbitration Law Enforcement Ordinance must be a top priority in order to ensure proper implementation of the arbitration law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2014

As all aspects of international activity have kept growing in good transaction, transnational investments, joint ventures, and the licensing of intellectual property, it is inevitable for disputes to increase across national frontiers. International disputes can be settled by arbitration and ADR. In the situation presented in the paper, any dispute shall be finalized by arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex has become the principal method of resolving disputes in trade, commerce, and investment in accordance with the "Agreement on South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). But the follow-up measures of the said agreements have not been fulfilled. Some prerequisite measures of the Inter-Korean commercial arbitration must be satisfied. In order to proceed with arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, we need to ask the following: Does the status of an arbitrational matter? Should an agreement to arbitrate contain a choice of law clause? Should one provide for one arbitrator or three? How should the arbitrators be selected? What is the relation between party-appointed arbitrators and the presiding arbitrator (neutral arbitrator)? Do arbitrators compromise more than the litigation? Can conciliation be combined with arbitration? To execute the enactment of arbitration regulations, the contents of the Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (South) and the Korea International Trade Arbitration Committee (North), together with the Korean Arbitration Act and External Arbitration Act of North Korea and the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and UNCITRAL l Arbitration Rules are reflected in the Rules. There are many aspects of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration. It is essential to understand key elements; namely, the arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitrator, arbitral proceeding and arbitral award, and enforcement and setting aside of arbitral award. This research deals with five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the introduction. Chapter 2 deals with trade volume between South and North Korea and the kinds of dispute in Gaeseong. Chapter 3 addresses contents and follow-up measures of the agreement on the "South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). Chapter 4 features the problems and tasks of the pertinent agreements. Chapter 5 gives the conclusion. Enabling parties to find an amicable solution to the dispute in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex can lead to a useful and appropriate framework either through direct negotiation or by resorting to conciliation or mediation in accordance with pertinent agreements and follow-up measures contained in the agreements.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.215-238
• /
• 2012

This paper is to review the interim measures of arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitration and to compare the emergency arbitrator systems of international arbitration institutions including the ICDR, SCC, SIAC, ACICA, and ICC. Most arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measures of protection. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 are regarded to contribute significantly to the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. A party that needs urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal may make an application for such measures. Major international arbitration institutions have their own rules and provisions for the emergency arbitrator system, which was set forth first by the ICRD in 2006. The application requirements for emergency arbitrators are almost the same. However, there are significant differences in details such as appointments and applications for challenging emergency arbitrators, the process and form of the emergency arbitrator's decision, etc. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider these differences for more desirable emergency arbitrator proceedings in Korea.