• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2013

The interpretation and application of investment treaties takes place mostly by ad hoc tribunals. Their composition varies from case to case. But in interpreting and applying investment treaties are bound to exist on a ground rule and coherent criteria. Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. When interpreting investment treaties, (i) most tribunals is based on Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, (ii) tribunals rely on previous decisions, (iii) tribunals resort to travaux pr$\acute{e}$paratoires, (iv) tribunals consider the interpretative statement. When applying investment treaties, (i) treaties apply only in relation to acts or events that occurred after their entry into force, (ii) tribunals have applied different inter-temporal rules to jurisdictional clauses and substantive provisions in treaties, (iii) the relevant date for purposes of jurisdiction is the date of the institution of proceedings, (iv) Under the ICSID convention, the host state and investor's nationality must be a party to the convention on the date the proceedings are instituted. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in the interpretation and application standards of investment treaties. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2019

This article examines the necessity for the introduction of an ICSID Appellate System. In comparison with the WTO appellate system, the ICSID ad hoc Committee has a very limited mandate. An annulment inquiry under the ICSID arbitration system barely focuses on whether the arbitral decision resulted from a justifiable process. As long as there is procedural legitimacy, the resulting awards remain unaffected under the annulment procedure, irrespective of mistakes of fact or law. In contrast, in the WTO DSS the AB substantively reviews panel rulings and suggestions that are founded on any deficiency of objectivity or error in the interpretation of a particular WTO provision. This defect intrinsic in the annulment procedure could cause injustice to a party earnestly interested in correcting recognized misapplication of law by ICSID tribunals. Accordingly, the establishment of an appellate system would result in a more substantive and procedural review of awards. The creation of such an ICSID appellate system would ensure thorough scrutiny of the decisions of the tribunal of first instance, leading to better reasoned outcomes. This could lead to a crystallization of predictability in investment relations. The end result would be that fairness, clarity, reliability, and legality in the ICSID adjudicative process would be unassailable, to the advantage of all the contracting parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.21-54
• /
• 2011

International commercial arbitration has established itself as the primary dispute resolution mechanism for international business transactions. Certainly, there are commonly-accepted standards that have evolved to reflect an internationally-harmonized approach to issues relating to the taking of evidence. This is reflected in International Bar Association("IBA") Rules for Taking of Evidence in International Evidence("IBA Rules"). This IBA Rules were revised in 2010. Designed to assist parties in determining what procedures to use in their particular case, IBA Rules present some of the methods for conducting international arbitration proceedings. Parties and arbitral tribunals may adopt IBA Rules in whole or in part - at the time of drafting the arbitration clause in a contract or once an arbitration commences - or they may use them as guidelines. They supplement applicable national laws and institutional or ad hoc rules. The IBA Rules were an ambitious undertaking, designed to overcome fundamental cultural differences relating to the taking of evidence under different national court systems. While it is difficult to assess how frequently the IBA Rules are actually adopted by parties, it is fair to say that they have had a considerable influence on the practice of taking evidence in international arbitration. This article mainly describes the essential provisions of IBA Rules, as revised in 2010, including but not limited to production of document, witnesses of fact, party-appointed experts, and tribunal-appointed experts. It also provides a comparison of relevant procedural rules of civil law and common law systems to each of the above mentioned provisions. It is important for arbitration practitioners to understand the differences in the taking of evidence under civil law and common law systems, respectively. This article will be helpful for practitioners and academics not only to understand the revised IBA Rules themselves but also to prepare for, and adequately deal with, the frictions that may arise as a result of the differences in approach for taking evidences. Indeed, so prepared, the arbitration practitioner will be able to anticipate the expectations, perceptions and the conduct of the parties, their counsel and the tribunal members.