• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2005

Arbitration is a creature of contract. The parties agree that selective dispute resolution clause provides them with a choice to litigate or arbitrate certain disputes. Under the agreements, the parties had the option in the action. In the event any dispute arises between the parties concerning our representation or payment of our fees and disbursements which cannot be promptly resolved to our mutual satisfaction, you agree that dispute will be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. The selective arbitration agreement has become an accepted method of dispute resolution. However, the trend of dispute settlement has changed. The selective arbitrations clauses are to be construed as broadly as possible, and arbitration will be compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.87-122
• /
• 1998

This study reports on the Arbitration system in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration commission (CIETAC) and the International Arbitration problems of Korea and China. The Chines laws including Arbitration laws are influenced by the civil Code system Particulary the German system. China is contracting state of the U N Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958 New York Convention), which became effective in the China April 22, 1987. International Commercial Arbitration is popular in China. CIETAC is the sole International Commercial Arbitration body in China. CIETAC has two sub-commissions, on is shen zhem S E Z and the other in shanghai. The CIETAC rules, are similar to the rules in effect in Countries using a civil Code system. Both an agreement to submit an existing dispute to Arbitration and an Arbitration clause in a contract relating to future disputes are recognizeal as valiad Arbitration agreements. CIETAC has the power to make a decision on disputes concering the validity of the Arbitration agreements, or jurisdiction over a specicific case.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.71-100
• /
• 2007

To promote the way of resolving the increasing disputes regarding international intellectual property by arbitration, we should overcome uncertainty thwarting the dispute resolution; i.e., whether a dispute regarding intellectual property would be an arbitrable subject, whether the arbitration agreement would be valid and enforceable, and whether the arbitral award could be recognized and enforced in a foreign country. This article is intended to seek how to promote and facilitate the resolution of international disputes regarding intellectual property by arbitration. This article in Chapter II will examine the characteristics of the IP disputes first. Chapter III of this article will study arbitrability of IP disputes. Then, Chapter IV will discuss the requirements, validity, and effectiveness of arbitration agreement of international IP disputes. The author will discuss the procedure of arbitration of the international IP disputes in Chapter V, and finally the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards thereon in Chapter VI. Due to the so called 'territoriality principle' in intellectual property, the international disputes thereof confront numerous procedural setback, e.g., jurisdiction, conflict of laws, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or awards. To overcome such setbacks, I propose resolution of international IP disputes by one-step arbitration procedure through widely recognizing the arbitrability of IP disputes, and utilizing unnational nature of arbitration. In addition, I propose to set up the principles as to arbitration of the international IP disputes as the American Law Institute has formulated the principles for International Intellectual Property Litigations. By setting up these principles, I am certain it will be helpful to just and prompt resolution of international IP disputes which occur more frequently these days.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.12a
• /
• pp.149-170
• /
• 2004

Arbitration is a creature of contract. The parties agree that selective dispute resolution clause provides them with a choice to litigate or arbitrate certain disputes. Under the agreements, the parties had the option in the action. In the event any dispute arises between the parties concerning our representation or payment of our fees and disbursements which cannot be promptly resolved to our mutual satisfaction, you agree that dispute will be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. The selective arbitrations clauses are to be construed as broadly as possible, and arbitration will be compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2020

Smart contracts are implemented by blockchain technology, which stores the terms of the contracts of both parties on the blockchain. In the event of an international dispute over smart contracts and blockchains, no special solution has been proposed, such as the enactment of the International Unification Act. The blockchain platform which operates smart contracts is decentralized and operates through distributed nodes around the world without central servers, making it difficult to establish jurisdiction and governing laws. As an alternative to traditional dispute-solving methods, a new mediation model-smart arbitration-is being attempted. The arbitration process is likely to be a preferred means of resolving disputes over smart contracts in practice. There are many problems, such as the fairness of the arbitration center on the selection and judgment of arbitrators, the question of securing reliability, the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and how much the court can be involved in the case. Preparations at the national level, such as fostering blockchains and smart contract experts, and overhauling the legal system, are needed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2018

This article examines whether parties may agree to contractually waive the right to bring annulment proceedings. Alternately it looks at whether certain grounds of annulment may be waived. The ability for parties to resolve this issue contractually by waiving this element of Article 52(1)(b) ICSID offers a potentially powerful solution. For parties to agree beforehand to the circumstances where tribunals have not 'manifestly exceeded their power' could allow them to remove the unpredictability of annulment on this foundation. Even in the event that an ad hoc committee is against the validity of waiver, it may be possible for a party to frame this restriction as an interpretative agreement by the parties rather than strictly as waiver of a ground of annulment. Ultimately, the wish to enter into such an agreement would likely only be driven by a few exceptional commercial need or prior negative experience with the remedy of annulment. In that cases, and depending on the nature of the specific concern with annulment, a limited waiver or interpretative agreement on certain Article 52(1) ICSID grounds may certainly be appropriate.