• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.131-152
• /
• 2018

On October 31, 2013, the Singapore Court of Appeals handed down a landmark decision in the case of PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International and Others [2013] SGCA 57. The case arose out of an arbitration in Singapore involving the Malaysian conglomerate Astro and the Indonesian conglomerate Lippo, which culminated in a USD 250 million award in favor of Astro. The final award was given to three Astro subsidiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, but who were joined in the arbitration pursuant to an application by Astro. Lippo then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the enforcement orders. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the High Court's decision, and found that Astro was only entitled to enforce the awards. Also, the Court of Appeals undertook a detailed analysis of the use of active and passive remedies to defeat an arbitral award at the seat and the place of enforcement, respectively. It also touches on the innovation of forced joinders of third parties in arbitrations, which have garnered significant interest in the arbitration community. This decision is therefore expected to have a significant impact on the practice of international arbitration, including in relation to how awards can be enforced or defeated, as the case may be.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

First, the purpose of this research is to review the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations in Korea to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the near future. Second, this research tries to look for alternative solutions to dispute resolutions according to these regulations. Third, this research pursues to enhance the effectiveness of business deals by providing efficient and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for e-commerce business. Furthermore, this study evaluates the definition of global e-commerce by comparing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Through analyzing the domestic ODR system and ADR system, this research could boost the employment of settlements in small-sized disputes through easy and convenient consumer access to both ODR and ADR procedures. The enhancement of the competitiveness of Korean companies in the global market is estimated to take place as a result. This research is estimated to provide benefits to our businesses both domestically and internationally by using ODR regulations and ADR methods. Moreover, this research is anticipated to verify usefulness in terms of consumer protection by advancing consumers' access to dispute solution authorities locally and abroad.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.191-223
• /
• 2003

Electronic commerce and the Internet offer unprecedented opportunities. The explosive expansion of the use of the Internet makes it possible for businesses to expand their markets and render services. Global transaction costs are easy to cut off using Internet and transaction speed is faster than before. Where cyberspace is not free from claims, Offline transaction can lead to problems and disputes the same is for cyberspace transactions. However ADR is not meet for the online transaction for speed, cost and open network system, ODR methods to resolve electronic commerce conflicts is crucial for building confidence and permitting access to justice in an online business environment. The use of the Internet and the network in dispute resolution has an impact on the types of communication implied in the relevant processes such as automated negotiation, online mediation and online arbitration and involves new technological issues such as the integrity and confidentiality of data and communication used to transmit and store data. Among the ODR systems Online Arbitration is currently binding both parties disputed and can achieve the aim of dispute award the same as the traditional arbitration. Arbitration is based on the New York Convention 1958, Arbitration Model law 1985 and national Arbitration Act that are founded on territorial area and rested on arbitration agreement, constitution of the arbitral tribunal, due process, final and binding award and enforcement of the arbitration award. To compare with this issues Online arbitration has unnecessarily legal unstability and risk. ODR is the burgeoning field and has created a new issues. All such issues which have been debated in the ADR are composed with ODR. But these are not limited Some of issues are further complicated by the nature of the online environment such as confidentiality and principle of parties. It is true that online arbitration should comply with legal provisions, but which is impossible to adhere of the law. Flexible translation and functional equivalence of legal provisions are needed for acceptance of electronic commerce disputes. Finally electronic commerce now takes place on the Internet, it is inevitable that the commercial world wants access to dispute resolution process that best suits the new commercial environment. ODR methods are processing for development and legal issues are considered by both national and international authorities. Introduction of new Conventions or amend Convention and Model law of ODR comes near.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2006

The governing law in international commercial arbitration may be divided into governing arbitration law and governing substantive law. The former governs the parties' arbitration agreement and the conduct of any subsequent arbitration. But the later governs the parties' substantive rights and obligations, which means the law that governs contract formation and performance, and the law to be applied by the arbitrator to the merits of the dispute. The purpose of this paper is to examine how to determine the substantive governing law when there is express choice or implied choice between parties. Moreover this author checked any restrictions on party autonomy and also any possibilities to deviate from the governing law. In case of express choice the sources of the law or rules of law might be the national law of one of the parties, the neutral law, the general principles of law or lex mercatoria according to the arbitration law selected by the arbitral tribunal. Some arbitration laws or rules empower the arbitrator to decide the case ex aequo et bono or to act as amiable compositions. If the governing law could be determined expressly or impliedly by the parties, the arbitral tribunal would make a selection. In this case the criteria for selecting a governing law are not exactly same from country to country. But failing any indication by the parties as to governing law, the arbitral tribunal should apply the rules of law, the law or the law under the rule of conflict that the arbitrators consider applicable, according to the governing arbitration law. Among the connecting factors offered by the conflict rules, (which means the factors that the arbitrators consider applicable), some legal systems give precedence to the formation of the contract, other system to the place of performance of the contract, and others to the closest connection or centre of gravity. But the Rome Convention, which unified the conflict rules of the contracting states, gives precedence to the law of the domicile of the party which has to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract. Finally this author suggested the Choice of Law Clause which covers governing substantive law and governing arbitration law at the same time. Thus the UNIDROIT Principles as well as any national law may be included as a governing law in international arbitration. So when we make sales or service contract, we should take into consideration of the UNIDROIT Principles as a governing law or a supplement to the governing law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2008

When several parties are involved in a dispute, it is usually considered desirable that the issues should be dealt with in the same proceedings, rather than in a series of separate proceedings. This saves time and money. It avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions on the same issues of law and fact, since all issues are determined by the same tribunal at the same time. Where there is a multi-party arbitration, it may be because there are several parties to one contract, or it may be because there are several contracts with different parties that have a bearing on the matters in dispute. In international trade and commerce, for individuals, corporations or state agencies to join together in a joint venture or consortium or in some other legal relationship of this kind, in order to enter into a contract with another party or parties, where such a contract contains an arbitration clause and a dispute arises, the members of the consortium or joint venture may decided that they would each like to appoint an arbitrator. A different problem arises where there are several contracts with different parties, each of which has a bearing on the issues in dispute. A major international construction project is likely to involve not only the employer and the main contractor, but also a host of special suppliers and sub-contractors. Each of them will be operating under different contracts often with different choice of law and arbitration clauses. The appointment of the arbitrator or the composition of the arbitral tribunal should be in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The parties have to be equally treated in the constituting of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral proceedings. However, the right of the parties to nominate a member of the arbitral tribunal could be taken away from them, if they are subject to the restrictions by means of the law of the country where the arbitration is taking place. That is, multiple parties jointly should nominate one arbitrator, where there they have to exercise their substantive right in common, or one of them exert his substantive right, then it has an effect on another parties, or they, whether as claimant or as respondent, get the same or similar treatment in the arbitral procedure. Therefore it is necessary to intend to settle multi-party disputes quickly and efficiently.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.155-171
• /
• 2021

Recently, the e-business market has become a place of convergence where consumers and suppliers communicate with each other, and a new method of trading of funds has emerged in the process. Crowd-funding is one of the types of money transactions that have emerged in the online space, and its interest and trading volume have been growing rapidly recently. The platform in the online space using crowd-funding method operates in the form of online telecommunication sales, and it is in the form of producing and delivering products based on funds obtained from potential consumers by the operators involved in securing funds. However, if the participating business operators do not deliver the product or deliver the product other than the promoted product and avoid responsibility, the potential demander will not be compensated without mediation by the platform operating entity. In this study, despite the rapid growth in the market size of crowd-funding, consumers who participated in the funding are protected and able to resolve disputes in the event of a conflict amid growing complaints from potential consumers and side effects. The structure or method of crowd-funding is a new form of trading that has different features from conventional e-commerce. Therefore, the legal basis is not yet in place and the standards need to be laid out through various and sufficient discussions politically, legally, socially and culturally and economically. As the potential market and positive effects of crowd-funding around the world have been recognized, a role is required as an ecosystem for new financial transactions. And the potential market could be realized as a new industry if the right legal system and policy consultation were made.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.55-87
• /
• 2011

This paper is to illustrate a variety of court-annexed ADR programs and vindicate its implications of court-annexed ADR in United States. It has been almost three decades since Frank Sender articulated his vision of the multi-door courthouse. The court-annexed ADR originated from the concept of multi-door court house. Professor Sander argued that the court must transform from the court that provides litigation, only one type of dispute resolution, to the multi-door courthouse which provides a variety of dispute resolution methods including a number of ADR programs. The types of court-annexed ADR on which this paper focus are court-annexed mediation, court-annexed arbitration, mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, rent-a-judge, and med-arb in United States. The findings of this paper is as follows. First, the ADR movement is the irreversible and dominant phenomenon in the US court. The motivation of incorporating ADR into court is to reduce the cost of court to handle the civil disputes and to eliminate the delay of litigation process in the court. At the same time, a couple of studies of ADR revealed that the ADR program satisfied users of ADR. Second, the landscape of ADR has not been fixed. In 1970's, the court-annexed arbitration has been popular. In 1980's, the diverse kinds of ADR programs were introduced into the federal court as well as state courts, such as mini trial, early neutral evaluation(ENE), summary jury trial, and court-annexed mediation. But in 2000s, the court-annexed mediation has been the dominant type of ADR in United States. Third, the each type of ADR program has its own place for the dispute resolution. Since Korean society enters into the stage in which diverse kind of disputes occur in the areas of environment, construction, medicare, etc, it is desirable to take into consideration of the introduction of ADR to dispute resolution in Korea.