• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2008

This paper is to research the current status of ADR in Korea, the qualifications of mediator (or conciliator) and arbitrator, the ADR education program of major foreign arbitration-related institutions and the efficient management device of ADR education program for the activation of the ADR system. In 2007, arbitration applications received at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board numbered 320 and the amount involved those cases was US$ 216 millions. Mediation applications received at the KCAB numbered 552 and the amount involved those cases US$ 29millions. As of December 2007, the total numbers of arbitrators on the KCAB Panel of Arbitrators was 978. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and Arbitration Act of Korea. The KCAB has the consolidation regulation of the Panel of Arbitrator of which purpose is to regulate the criteria and procedure regarding the drawing up and maintenance of the panel of arbitrators. The UK Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has the criteria and qualifications for membership of which three grades are associate, member and fellow. The American Arbitration Association has the qualification criteria for admittance to the AAA National Roster of Arbitrators and Mediators. The Japan Association of Arbitrators has the official authorization regulation for membership of which three grades are special associate, ordinary associate and fellow. The UK Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has the ADR education programs which are composed of the mediation courses and arbitration courses. The American arbitrators Association has the ADR education programs which are composed of in-person training and online training. The Japan Association of Arbitrators has the ADR education programs which are composed of the cultivation courses of conciliator and the practical training courses of arbitrator. The efficient management devices of ADR education program are as follows: the execution of official authorization system of arbitrator, the establishment of specialized division for training and official authorization, the establishment of ADR regular training courses, the publication of ADR training texts and obtaining of instructors, and the consolidation of regulations related to the official authorization of arbitrator and ADR training. In conclusion, for the activation of ADR system, the KCAB and Korean Association of Arbitrators should make further effort to provide the ADR regular education and training programs for potential and practicing conciliators and arbitrators.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

• 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
• /
• 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
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2007

This age is called the age of global trade, and the World Trade Organization is a forerunner in promoting the global free trade through multilateral negotiations as the global level. On the other hand, regional economic cooperation such as North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) is appearing, saying that promotion by WTO takes too much time. As is known to everybody, Europe is on the way of integrating member states through EU not to mention economic cooperation. Even in Asia such tendency is shown through ASEAN, Korea, China and Japan in Northeast Asia share geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Under the situation, efforts have been made between three countries of Korea, China and Japan for the conclusion of investment agreements including FTA. If the conclusion of the FTA between the three countries would be realized, it would promote regional trade and investment, contributing to economic growth in the Northeast Asian region. The writer in this paper reviewed the settlement of private commercial dispute including investment dispute arising from the FTA and investment agreements. The investment dispute is quite different from an ordinary commercial dispute arising from commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc. Therefore it is a problem of vital importance that the parties interested in investment under the FTA as well as the relevant investment agreement should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes arising therefrom. The ICSID Convention provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. All contracting states of the ICSID Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce the ICSID arbitral awards. The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") is also applicable for the enforcement of arbitral awards to be rendered under the FTA. As to applicable rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules may be required for the settlement of investment disputes under the FTA. This Rules has adopted by the internationally recognized arbitral organizations although it was developed primarily for use in ad hoc arbitration. The promotion of arbitral cooperation may be realized through agreements between arbitral institutions. Especially under the NAPTA system, a central common system was established to resolve jointly private commercial disputes arising from such free trades by the initiative of arbitral organizations among the member countries. It is called Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA), which may be a good example for the settlement promotion of the private commercial disputes between Korea and other relevant countries.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권8호
• /
• pp.171-188
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This is an exploratory study that aims to apply text mining techniques, which computationally extracts words from the large-scale text data, to legal documents to quantify trade claim contents and enables statistical analysis. Design/methodology - This is designed to verify the validity of the application of text mining techniques as a quantitative methodology for trade claim studies, that have relied mainly on a qualitative approach. The subjects are 81 cases of arbitration and court judgments from China published on the website of the UNCITRAL where the CISG was applied. Validation is performed by comparing the manually analyzed result with the automatically analyzed result. The manual analysis result is the cluster analysis wherein the researcher reads and codes the case. The automatic analysis result is an analysis applying text mining techniques to the result of the cluster analysis. Topic modeling and semantic network analysis are applied for the statistical approach. Findings - Results show that the results of cluster analysis and text mining results are consistent with each other and the internal validity is confirmed. And the degree centrality of words that play a key role in the topic is high as the between centrality of words that are useful for grasping the topic and the eigenvector centrality of the important words in the topic is high. This indicates that text mining techniques can be applied to research on content analysis of trade claims for statistical analysis. Originality/value - Firstly, the validity of the text mining technique in the study of trade claim cases is confirmed. Prior studies on trade claims have relied on traditional approach. Secondly, this study has an originality in that it is an attempt to quantitatively study the trade claim cases, whereas prior trade claim cases were mainly studied via qualitative methods. Lastly, this study shows that the use of the text mining can lower the barrier for acquiring information from a large amount of digitalized text.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제47권3호
• /
• pp.177-190
• /
• 2022

This study is designed to identify the differences in the types and importance of trade claims at the national level. For analysis data, abstracts of arbitration and court judgments published on the website of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law are collected and used. The target countries are China and the United States, with 102 cases from China and 59 cases from the United States. By applying topic modeling techniques to the collection decisions of China and the United States, trade claims are categorized, and the importance of each type is identified using the network centrality index derived through semantic network analysis. The analysis results are as follows. First, the main types of trade claims were the same for both the United States and China: product nonconformity, delivery issues, and payments. However, in China, the order of product nonconformity > delivery issues > payments was important, and in the United States, payments > product nonconformity > delivery issues were found to be important. This study is significant in that it presents a strategic trade claim management plan using a quantitative methodology.