• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• 제44권2호
• /
• pp.147-160
• /
• 2022

SRFC (Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission) requested to the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) an advisory opinion relating to the IUU (Illegl, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing (Case No-21 of the ITLOS). Since, in the UNCLOS, there is no article authorizing the jurisdiction of the ITLOS full court's Advisory opinion, so various scholarly opinion wad divided. But ITLOS delivered its Advisory opinion confirming its jurisdictional competence over the Advisory proceedings with its legal opinion about the IUU issues. It opens new possibility of the alternative dispute settlement mechanism of the ITLOS through the advisory procedures. In reality, there has been a view that ICJ (International Court of Justice) could take the part of a kind of dispute settlement through its Advisory procedures. But the advisory procedures of the ITLOS, with no definite clause in UNCLOS about the advisory procedures, which provides more allowances for the function of advisory opinion as the alternative dispute settlement mechanism. ITLOS accepted the requests of the advisory opinion by the State parties through international organization or themselves directly. And the advisory opinion of the ITLOS aims the interpretation and application into the special issues-specially IUU fishing in Case No. 21 of the ITLOS-. Those factors could enable more enhanced role of the ITLOS as an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. But those possibility has contain risk of excessive and unlimited advisory role of the ITLOS. So it is important to focus on the restriction on the role of the State parties in the request of the advisory opinion to the ITLOS. In this regard it is meaningful that the ITLOS has suggested a kind of legal standing in the advisory procedures in that only coastal States could request the Advisory opinion about the IUU in their EEZ. Furthermore the discretionary power of the ITLOS in the Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal could curtail the abuse of the Advisory opinion initiated by the States parties of the UNCLOS. Under this framework, Advisory opinion could broaden more alternative option to the disputes between State parties of the UNCLOS in that after being delivered detailed interpretation of the UNCLOS about the specific issues, States parties could devote themselves to searching for flexible solution for the disputes between State parties. It could obtain legal explanation about the dispute under the Article 297 and Article 298 by detouring the jurisdiction limits through advisory procedures.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권2호
• /
• pp.177-189
• /
• 2020

The dispute settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is in great peril. The Appellate Body has ceased to function last December as the United States has blocked the appointment of new Appellate Body members since 2017. The focus of this study is on the examination of US's discontent on the Appellate Body and various efforts to reform the Appellate Body. In a recent report, the US Trade Representative raises its concerns on the Appellate Body including 90 days mandatory deadline, transitional rules for outgoing Appellate Body members, scope of appeal, advisory opinions, precedent, recommendation, and overreach without offering any viable solutions. Some of WTO members and experts proposed several Appellate Body reform measures but agreement between WTO members is unlikely in a foreseeable future. Alternative dispute settlement mechanisms should be seriously considered such as interim appeal arbitration arrangements, separate dispute settlement mechanisms for trade remedies, unilateral retaliatory measures without WTO authorization. Rules-based multilateral dispute settlement system is imperative to small open economies like Korea. The Korean government should actively participate in Appellate Body reform discussions with other WTO members to keep the WTO dispute settlement system from collapsing.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.181-209
• /
• 2004

This Study is divided into 5 separate Parts and an Abstract. Part Ⅰ, Ⅱ consist mostly of a collection of problems, current status, motives and the future of ADR. In Pert Ⅲ was described ADR as policies of judicial settlements. We must accept that a diversity of legal culture will always continue to exist. Accordingly we must learn to accommodate those differences of 'culture' around us and to harmonize conflicting laws. This recognition of our reality should in no way be confused with pessimism. In fact if one accepts this perspective of the world ,the study of law seems enriched and becomes academically more challenging. Recently, in the United States, interest in alternative settlement mechanism has increased greatly, which leads me to wonder why such a phenomenon has taken place. In the first place, I'm amazed at the extent to which conciliation or mediation-or the new word, I guess, is alternative dispute resolution, which by now has its own acronym, "A.D.R,"-have gained attention here recently. When 35 years ago, there was virtually no interest in conciliation in this country at the time. What interest there was, was no in the law schools. But looking at the situation now, we have a spate of publications on the subject; we have organizations that are established for no other reason than to promote alternative dispute settlement. We have courses in the law schools. The American Association of Law Schools and the American Bar Association also have active programs. So we have to ask ourselves why. The difference between now and 35 years are striking. On the other hand, I think the interest of the public in ADR has probably been greatly enhanced by the politics of the so-called "poverty programs." I think that many of these assistance programs for the poor-and I do think the "poor" have become a rather expansive political movement beyond simply taking care of the most marginal people of society-have generated money to explore this kind of dispute resolution.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2019

An issue of human rights abuse in business emerged as a serious social problem recently not only in Korea, but also worldwide. However, the stipulations in 'UNGPs' and 'OECD Guidelines' do not provide a legally binding dispute settlement mechanism. Under these circumstances, it is very well timed that the Working Group on International Arbitration of Business and Human Rights recently published the Draft Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which will be launched in December 2019 as an effective and efficient alternative to mediation or court litigation. This paper examines the purpose, the structure, and the unique features of the Draft Hague Rules, among other provisions, including 1) Inequality of Arms between the Parties, 2) Appointing Authority, 3) Presiding Arbitrator's Qualification, 4) Evidentiary Procedures, 5) Remedy, and 6) Governing Law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.273-314
• /
• 2004

There is a belief in the construction industry that the traditional court system may not be an ideal forum to effectively and efficiently resolve construction disputes due to the protracted proceedings and the three tier appeal system resulting in a long delay in the final and conclusive settlement of the dispute, relatively high costs involved, the lack of requisite knowledge and experience in the relevant industry, etc. Hence, they assert that certain alternative dispute resolution ('ADR') methods, such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration or a new system for dispute settlement in the form of any combination thereof should be developed and employed for construction disputes so as to resolve them more promptly and efficiently to the satisfaction of all the disputants concerned. This paper discusses certain merits of such assertions and the need for additional considerations for effective resolution of the construction disputes in light of the complexity of the case, importance of expert witnesses, parties' relationship and non-level playing field of the construction industry and so on. At the same time, however, given the inherent nature of disputes rendering the parties involved in an adversarial position, it would rather be difficult, if not practically impossible, to satisfy all the parties concerned in the dispute. Accordingly, in this study, it is also purported to address the demerits of such assertions by studying the situation from a more balanced perspective, in particular, in relation to the operation of such ADRs. In fact, most of such ADRs as stipulated by special acts, such as the Construction Industry Basic Act of Korea, in the form of mediation or conciliation, have failed to get support from the industry, and as a result, such ADRs are seldom used in practice. Tn contrast, the court system has been greatly improved by implementing a new concentrated review system and establishing several tribunals designed to specialize in the review and resolution of specific types of disputes, including the construction disputes. These improvements of the court system have been warmly received by the industry. Arbitration is another forum for settlement of construction disputes, which has grown and is expected to grow as the most effective ADR with the support from the construction industry. In this regard, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board ('KCAB') has established a set of internal rules end procedures in operation to efficiently handle construction disputes. Considering the foregoing, this paper addresses the most important elements of the arbitration, i.e., arbitration agreement and arbitral award, primarily focusing on the domestic arbitrations before the KCAB. However, since this parer is prepared for presentation at the construction disputes seminar for the public audience, it is not intended for academic purposes, nor does it delve into any specific acadcmic issues. Likewise, although this paper addresses certain controversial issues by way of introduction, it mainly purports to facilitate the understanding of the general public, including the prospective arbitrators on the KCAB roster without the relevant legal education and background, concerning the importance of the integrity of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award. In sum, what is purported in this study is simply to note that there are still many outstanding issues with mediation, conciliation and arbitration, as a matter of system, institutional operation or otherwise, for further study and consideration so as to enhance them as effective means for settlement of construction disputes, in replacement of or in conjunction with the court proceeding. For this purpose, it is essential for all the relevant parties, including lawyers, engineers, owners, contractors and social activists aiming to protect consumers' and subcontractors' interests, to conduct joint efforts to study the complicated nature of construction works and to develop effective means for examination and handling of the disputes of a technical nature, including the accumulation of the relevant industrial data. Based on the foregoing, the parties may be in a better position to select the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism, a court proceeding or in its stead, an effective ADR, considering the relevant factors of the subject construction works or the contract structure, such as the bargaining position of the parties, their financial status, confidentiality requirements, technical or commercial complexity of the case at hand, urgency for settlements, etc.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권5호
• /
• pp.139-158
• /
• 2018

오늘날의 무역구조는 이전보다 훨씬 다변화 되었고, 각국의 수출입액이 늘어남에 따라 무역분쟁의 내용도 훨씬 복잡해지고 있는 것은 물론 분쟁의 수 또한 증가하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁을 해결하는 수단으로서 소송과 중재를 비롯한 협상, 알선, 조정 등이 활용되고 있지만 소송이나 중재에 의한 해결방법은 관할권, 거리상의 제약, 비용과 절차의 복잡성 등 그 어려움이 따른다. 또한 협상이나 알선에 의할 경우, 효력이나 제도상의 미비점 등 그 한계성을 드러내면서 이들을 대체할 수 있는 방법이 요구되어 왔다. 이에 ADR의 한 형태로 등장한 조정은 조정인이 분쟁당사자 사이에서 중립인의 역할을 하면서 당사자가 자주적으로 사건을 해결하도록 돕는 제도이다. 조정은 비밀보장에 의한 신뢰구축, 준거법과 재판관할권의 비적용, 절차의 간이성, 미래지향적인 결과도출이라는 장점이 중점적으로 부각되고 있어 미국, 일본을 비롯한 중국 등에서는 일찍이 무역분쟁의 해결수단으로 이용되고 있다. 하지만 우리나라에서는 아직 조정의 유용성이 널리 알려지지 못하였고, 그 이용 또한 저조한 상태이다. 본고는 조정이 어떠한 제도인지를 설명하는 것과 함께 무역분쟁의 해결수단으로서 조정이 지닌 유용성을 밝힘으로써 향후 분쟁발생 시 본 제도의 적극적 이용을 도모하고자 하는 취지에서 연구를 진행하였다.