• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.131-160
• /
• 2017

When any investment dispute arises, the investor has to exhaust the local remedies available in the host state, and according to the agreement between the parties, the investor is filed to the ICSID arbitral tribunal to seek arbitral awards. At this time, if the arbitral tribunal decides that the investment agreement has been violated, it normally demands the host state to provide financial compensations to the investor for economic loss. According to the rules of the investment agreement, the host state is supposed to fulfill the arbitral awards voluntarily. If it is unwilling to provide financial compensations according to the arbitral awards, however, the investor may ask the domestic court of the host state for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In addition, if the host state is unwilling to fulfill arbitral awards on account of state immunity, the investor may ask his own country (state of nationality) for diplomatic protection and urge it to demand the fulfillment of arbitral awards. Effectiveness for pecuniary damages, a means to solve problems arising in the enforcement of investment arbitral awards, is found to be rather ineffective. For such cases, this study suggests an alternative to demand either a restitution of property or a corrections of violated measures subject to arbitral awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.225-261
• /
• 2005

Under Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall supply (a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof and (b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In addition, if the arbitral award or arbitration agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, and the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. In a case where a Vietnamese company which had obtained a favorable arbitral award in Vietnam applied for recognition and enforcement of a Vietnamese arbitral award before a Korean court, the recent Korean Supreme Court Judgment (Docket No. 2004 Da 20180. 'Judgment') rendered on December 12, 2004 has alleviated the document requirements as follows : The Judgment held that (i) the party applying for recognition andenforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not have to strictly comply with the document requirements when the other party does not dispute the existence and the content of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement and that (ii) in case the translation submitted to the court does not satisfy the requirement of Article 4, the court does not have to dismiss the case on the ground that the party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award has failed to comply with the translation requirement under Article 4, and instead may supplement the documents by obtaining an accurate Korean translation from an expert translator at the expense of the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In this regard, the author fully supports the view of the Judgment. Finally, the Judgment held that, even though the existence of a written arbitration agreement was not disputed at the arbitration, there was no written arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and wenton to repeal the judgment of the second instance which admitted the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, the author does not share the view of the Judgment. The author believes that considering the trend of alleviating the formality requirement of arbitration agreements under Article 2 of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court could have concluded that there was a written arbitration agreement because the defendant participated in thearbitration proceedings in Vietnam without disputing the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement. Or the Supreme Court should have taken the view that the defendant was no longer permitted to dispute the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement because otherwise it would be clearly against the doctrine of estoppel.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2012

China instituted arbitration law on September 1, 1995, after having legislated the law under the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, Chinese arbitration law has some problems related to the effectiveness of its arbitration agreement, unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law. Thus, parties in dispute who want to settle a dispute based on Chinese arbitration law as governing law have more to take into consideration because there could be serious problems related to the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, this paper attempted to analyze the classification of jurisdiction related to the authorization of effectiveness in arbitration agreement of arbitral organization and Chinese, verify the problems, and suggest the solutions. Moreover, the author tried to verify the problems in applying the law related to the authorization of effectiveness in Chinese arbitration agreements and suggest some improvements. This paper also suggests improvements and problems related to the selection of arbitral organizations among several conditions for effective arbitration agreement in Chinese arbitration law. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures related to arbitrations agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.113-146
• /
• 2005

Bankruptcy proceedings serve the purpose of the collective satisfaction of the debtor's creditors through the realisation of the debtor's assets and the distribution of the proceeds therefrom. Upon the adjudication bankruptcy, the debtor's right to administer and dispose of the property belonging to the bankruptcy estate shall be vested in the administrator. If a mutual contract was not or not completely fulfilled by the debtor and the other party at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy, the administrator has right to choose wether to fulfil or terminate the contractual relation. Legal acts that have been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy and that are detrimental to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. However, these effects of bankruptcy will have not great influence on the arbitration agreement between the debtor and another party. An arbitration agreement that has been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy is binding the administrator as an universal legal successor of debtor. Only the arbitration agreement directly disadvantageous to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. Furthermore, it is not at the discretion of administrator whether or not to submit the dispute to arbitration because an arbitration agreement does not belong under the category of Art. 50 Korean bankruptcy Act which demands a mutual contract. Arbitral proceeding upon the property of the bankruptcy estate and pending for the debtor as plaintiff or against the debtor as defendant at the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy may be taken up at the given status by the administrator. This leads to a change of the party. If a duly summoned party fails to appear in arbitration court, the arbitrator, if satisfied there is no valid excuse, may continue the proceedings and make the award as if all the parties were present. This may be disadvantagious to the debtor's creditors because the arbitral award have the same effects on the participants as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. Even if there is a change of party on side of debtor to the administrator in bankruptcy, the arbitral proceedings will not be automatically postponed or suspended. The matter of how to proceed is at discretion of administrator, when the parties haven't agree on the arbitral proceedings. He can continue the arbitral proceedings without to grant an adjournment of hearing. However, an arbitration award may be challenged by a party dissatisfied and set aside by the court based upon the misconduct that violates the basic rights of the parties to a fair hearing. The arbitrator must treat the parties equally in the arbitral proceedings and give each party a full opportunity to present his case. The arbitrator, therefore, will carefully exercise his discretion in determining whether to continue the arbitral proceedings or to grant a postponing. In the practice, the arbitral proceedings may be usually postponed to grant due process.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. Contracting parties who have made a valid arbitration agreement will submit a dispute for settlement to private persons(arbitrators) instead of to a court. Arbitration may depend upon the agreement of the private parties, but it is also a system which has been built on the law and which relies upon that law in order to make it effective both nationally and internationally. That is to say, arbitration is wholly dependent on the underlying support of the court. The complementarity of the courts and of the arbitrators is a well-established fact; they seek for the common purpose, the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. Most states' laws contain the provisions which have been set for the supportive role of the courts relating to arbitration; (1) the enforcement of the arbitration agreement(rulings on validity of the arbitration agreement), and the establishment of the tribunal at the beginning of the arbitration, (2) challenge of arbitrators, interim measures, and intervention during evidence in the middle of the arbitral proceedings, (3) filing of the award, challenge of the arbitral award, and recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award at the end of the arbitration. Most international instruments and national laws concerning arbitration believe that authoritative courts should play their power not to control and supervise arbitration but to support and develop the merits of arbitration at most. 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law also expressly limit the scope of court's intervention to assist arbitration, not to control it.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.141-164
• /
• 2013

The current Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) ${\S}37(2)$ requires that a formal copy of an arbitral award or a duly certified copy thereof and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof be produced for the recognition and enforcement of a arbitral award. But as the KAA provides that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award to which the New York Convention applies shall be granted in accordance with the Convention, the duly authenticated original award should be produced instead of a formal copy in that case. The provision on the documents to produce for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is set to establish a reasonable and transparent standard and to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of awards by prohibiting parochial refusal of the recognition and enforcement on the grounds of formalities. Therefore it is necessary to simplify those documents according to the internationally acknowledged standard. It would be desirable to amend KAA ${\S}37(2)$ to require only "the original arbitral award or a copy thereof" without authentication or certification and a translation into Korean without any condition, adopting the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2021

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism based on the parties' agreement to resolve any disputes parties may have by arbitration rather than litigation in court. Parties' consent to arbitrate, which must be manifest in the parties' arbitration clause or agreement, is the foundation for arbitration; thus, the language of an arbitration agreement is often of utmost importance in determining the intent of the parties regarding many aspects of arbitration proceedings, such as, the scope of arbitral proceedings, arbitral seat, and authority of arbitral tribunals, among others. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) that ambiguity in arbitration agreement as to availability of class arbitration should be resolved in favor of individual arbitration, and therefore, class arbitration would be precluded. Such holding was met with criticism by four separate dissenting opinions, in which the dissenting Justices have disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the arbitration agreement at issue, as well as, its rejection of application of state law in resolving contractual ambiguity. This article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision and reviews the Court's approach in construction of the arbitration agreement. Nevertheless, because the Supreme Court declined to provide clear guidelines as to precisely what contractual basis is required to permit class arbitration, either silence or ambiguity in arbitration agreements will be resolved by disallowing class arbitration.