• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.25-44
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this parer is to examine the specifies of Institutional Arbitration and Ad Hoc Arbitration. The court prefers the institutional award in the enforcement rather than the award issued under the name of arbitrators alone. For example, the ICC Court of Arbitration scrutinizes awards for completeness, adherence to the ICC Rules and internal consistency, which since the court assurance for enforcement. In terms of arbitration costs, for which the ad hoc arbitration is considered to have comparative advantages, the institutional arbitration may not be more expensive than ad hoc arbitration, as in most commercial case, the administrative fees are insignificant. This paper suggests the standard or model arbitration clauses in institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. These Clauses contains the minimum elements necessary to render the arbitration agreement enforceable and effective. So both parties may add the specific contents such as the number of arbitrator, the place of arbitration and the language. Especially, in Ad Hoc Arbitration without designated set of rules, more clean clause for appointing arbitrators will be needed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.161-181
• /
• 2014

This thesis, which mainly focuses on the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, will mainly deal with three characteristics and analyze the causes that directly or indirectly influence them. The first characteristic is China does not recognize ad hoc arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration is the initial form of arbitration, and it occupies an important position in many countries; however, China's judicial system does not recognize it. There are many disadvantages for building a system of ad hoc arbitration in China; i. e., the arbitration system in China is undeveloped and shot-time established, and it lacks social and civil society basis, along with a credit system, which the Western ad hoc arbitration relies on. The second characteristic is the existence of excessive judicial supervision and control over arbitration in China. Judicial supervision over arbitration has been the customary practice in each country of the modern world, but sharp variation exists in the legal stipulations and the courts' attitude toward the standard to be applied in the supervision over arbitration. In China, there has always been a controversy over judicial supervision, and the standards applied in the supervision over arbitration by courts in different regions are less than identical. The last characteristic is the existence of a combination of mediation with arbitration, which is called Arb-Med in China. Such means that in the process of arbitration, the arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case it is handling if both parties agree to do so. Under the Chinese law, Arb-Med may lead to a binding and enforceable outcome. However, it has several legal disadvantages and almost no country adopts this system. China still insists that this system will go on because Arb-Med was first made in China, and its effect was proven through long-time practice in CIETAC.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this article is to examine the "Annulment" of ICSID Arbitration Award. Most of the international conventions provide for arbitration as the preferred method of dispute settlement. In general they either provide for ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules or under the rules of an acceptable arbitration institution, e.g. ICC, AAA, LCIA and in particular ICSID. The most distinctive feature of ICSID arbitration is the self-contained and exhaustive nature of its review procedures. Unlike other arbitration regimes, control is exercised by internal procedures rather than by the courts. Remedies against the award are limited to those provided for in the Convention and do not include court involvement. Especially, the annulment of the ICSID award by an ad hoc committee must be considered as jeopardizing ICSID Arbitration because it clearly depart from the current trends of international commercial arbitration which limits any kinds of judicial review and excludes any kinds of review on the merits. I wish that the future decisions of the ad hoc committees will restore a narrow scope to the ICSID procedure of annulment in order not to endanger the ICSID Arbitration mechanism.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-83
• /
• 2014

In the past, the mention of "international arbitration" would have brought to mind only commercial arbitration. However, the frequency of investment treaty arbitration has seen remarkable grow thanks to the rise of globalization and the spread of multi-national corporations. Reflecting on the current state of the world, this paper introduces the meaning, characteristics, and differences between commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration in the context of procedural considerations. To this end, this paper examines some major procedural differences among the said types of arbitration, by dividing commercial arbitration into institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration, and dividing investment treaty arbitration into ICSID arbitration and UNCITRAL Rules arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.29-49
• /
• 2021

The Chinese Arbitration Law came into force in 1995 and has been implemented for 26 years. As a party to the New York Convention, there are many contradictions and conflicts between the Chinese Arbitration Law and the New York Convention on the issue of ad hoc arbitration, and this institutional disconnection can bring about problems such as misalignment of arbitration powers. On July 30, 2021, China's Ministry of Justice published a draft of the revised Arbitration Law for public consultation, and the draft has generated a lively debate among the public. This article explores the reasonable and inadequate points of the draft of Arbitration Law in light of the recent trends in the use of commercial arbitration in China, the COVID-19, the Free Trade Zone, and the relationship between the Civil Code and the Arbitration Law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.55-76
• /
• 2013

This study aims to analyze the main features of Mongolian arbitration system compared with Korean Arbitration Law which was revised under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law. On the basis of this comparative study, certain differences are suggested: First, the environment of Mongolian arbitration is still insufficient in terms of its operation and usage at the international level. Second, the Mongol National Arbitration Court has established Ad-hoc Arbitration Rules and has promoted Ad-hoc Arbitration although it is an institutional arbitration organization. Third, the arbitration objects are defined as the types of tangible and intangible assets in Mongolia which are different from those of the Korean Arbitration Law. Accordingly, court and officer disputes, family disputes, labor-management relations, and criminal matters are covered by the arbitration objects. Fourth, Mongol Arbitration Law specifies the following persons disqualified for arbitrator appointment: the member of the Constitutional Court, judge, procurator, inquiry officer, investigator, court decision enforcement officer, attorney, or notary who has previously rendered legal service to any party of the disputes, and any officials who are prohibited by laws to be engaged in positions above the scope of their duties. Fifth, the arbitrator selection and appointment criteria should be documented, and the arbitrator should have the ability to resolve the disputes independently and fairly and achieve concord from both parties. Sixth, if there is no agreement between the parties, the arbitration language should be Mongolian, and the arbitral tribunal has no power to decide on it. Seventh, despite the agreement for a documentary hearing between the parties, there should be provided opportunities for an oral hearing if either of the parties requires it. Eighth, if the parties do not understand the language of the arbitration, the parties can directly ask the translation service. They should also keep secrets in the process of arbitration. Ninth, the cancellation of arbitral award is allowed by the application of the parties, not by the authority of the court. Except for the nine differences above, the Mongolian arbitration system is similar to that of the Korean Arbitration Law. This paper serves to contribute to the furtherance in trade relationship between Mongolia and Korea after the rapid and efficient resolution of disputes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2006

This writing is for the purpose of investigating the specific character and problem point of China arbitration system which has near 90 years history and overviewing the drift of system improvement which happens recently. The arbitration system of China which traditionally does not acknowledge ad hoc arbitration, unlike most of the other nations that employ The UNCITRAL model law and make it their own legislation, is restrictive to the parties concerned principle of private autonomy considerably. Also the independence of arbitration is delicate, because of a civil characteristic weakness of the arbitral institutions and the intervention of the courts on the arbitration procedure and award. The dual system of domestic and international arbitration which maintains after enforcement of 1994 arbitration law is often to be a primary factor interrupting the development of Chinese arbitration system and making it vulnerable to challenges. The system improvement demand of the recent time reflects this point and makes the arbitration system of China to a international standard rather than now, so it is a desirable direction for China to be as the member of the world economy to be globalization.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.117-138
• /
• 2008

This study lies on building the International Standardization of China Arbitration System for improving a relationship of mutual trust and the safety trade between China and other worldwide countries, especially, South Korea as their one of the biggest trading partners through the comparative analysis of China and UNCITRAL Arbitration Law. In this analysis, the differences from China and UNCITRAL in arbitration law are like belows ; lack of arbitrator's international mind, the limitation of private property right, prohibition of Ad. hoc arbitration, arbitrator's biased nationalism, localism, and their short specialties. a deficiency of the objectiveness for arbitrator's election, a judgement rejection of claimants by using nonattendance and walkout, impossibility of prior and temporary property custody for execution of arbitration award. etc. For the improvement of the International Standardization of China Arbitration, this paper propose as follows: 1) Extension of private property right, reorganization of tax system, realization of open competition, exclusion of 'Sinocentrism', globalization of arbitration system 2) The abolition of old fashioned bureaucracy with approval for ad.hoc arbitration 3) An education for arbitrator's internationalization, specialty, and to promote legal knowledge 4) A settlement of the third country arbitrators' selection for reflecting interested party's decision by the court in a selection system of arbitration committee. 5) Institutionalization of arbitration judgment that prevent for claimant's avoidance by using a withdrawal and an intentional absent 6) A permission of the right of claimant's court custody directly before the begging of arbitration request for the prevention for destruction of evidence and property concealment 7) Grant of the arbitration tribunal's interim measures of protection for private property preservation to the third party, proof security, prevention from the loss that selling the corruptible goods 8) Improvement of arbitration's efficiency from the exclusion of the obstacles that are forgery, concealed evidence, and arbitrator's bribe taking Lastly, I hope that this study will serve to promote friendly economic relationship between China and South Korea and strive for international equilibrium through the achievement of China Arbitration's International Standardization. I will finish this paper with a firm belief that this will lead to more advanced studies.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.43-75
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was created to focus on the procedural complexity in the resolution of sports-related disputes, confidentiality, the matter of expenses, and the necessity of prompt settlement in the field of international sports. The CAS had originally launched as one of bodies of International Olympic Committee (IOC), but later it became properly operational as an independent organization to facilitate sports-related disputes when the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which came into force in accordance with the Paris Agreement in 1984 and has acted in place of IOC, took responsibility for the administration and financing of the CAS. The CAS is composed of four divisions, the Ordinary Arbitration Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division, the Ad hoc Division created later in 1996 and the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) established as from 2016 only to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions on an alleged anti-doping rule violation, and two (Sydney and New York) permanent decentralized offices. The head office of the CAS is Lausanne, Switzerland. Since CAS ADD was established, CAS Ad hoc Division has had jurisdiction over the appeal case against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an international Federation or an Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games. Although there are so many virtues of CAS as a resolution authority for sports-related disputes in terms of its organization, arbitration rules and procedures, it is also true that the CAS has not been showing the consistency. The CAS should overcome these issues through much more advanced system and its instant and fair decisions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.27-66
• /
• 2005

From the reunification of Germany we can learn much for the reunification of Korea. That particularly applies for the dispute resolution of the trade relations between both states. The domestic trade relation, which was the only contractually regulated relation between two states for a long period of time, played a crucial role in the reunification of Germany, In this research paper, we examine how the economic disputes in divided Germany had been settled, and consider for the amicable economic relations between south and north Korea, what can we learn from that. In Germany, the disputes from the trade relations could be settled via the civil procedure, because the judicial codes of both German states were the same until 1975, However, that does not apply in Korea, as two Koreas have another law and another court system, from the start. We argue that arbitration is the best way for the completion of the economic disputes. Besides the general advantages of the arbitral procedure, the arbitration is particularly suitable to regulate the economic disputes from Korea-Korea relations, because of glaring differences of the legal status and reality of both countries. Furthermore, the standing arbitral tribunals would be in the economic relations between two Koreas more effectively than the ad-hoc arbitral tribunals. The ad-hoc arbitration generally requires a lot of time to setting up an arbitral Oibunal. For the rapid and obligatory settlement of dispute, the Convention of Currency, Economic and Social Union between West and East Germany 1990(Staatsvefrag zur Wahrungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialunion zwischen der Bundesrepublik und der DDR) also planned the institutional arbitration. The organizational support of the internal-Korean arbitration can take place via already existing institution, namely in south Korea 'The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board' Periodic decision reports and publication of substantial awards at the early stage seem appropriate.