• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.131-155
• /
• 2011

PICC executes its role as a useful lex mercatoria in the continuously increasing international trade to be adopted as the standard criterion of prevention or dispute resolution. When considering the fact that GISG has not presented results beyond expectation in the past due to hard laws and legal deficiency, PICC, which possesses interpretation and supplementation function, is considered undoubtedly useful particularly in international commercial arbitration. As observed in the previously mentioned analysis on cases accumulated in UNILEX, PICC application and Arbitral tribunal in international contract between parties possess considerably large claim possibility and the number of actual application cases is continuously increasing. The fact that PICC has been composed as maximum common measures of continental and common law systems by traditional comparative legal scholars familiar with international trade can function as the fundamental principle in future global trade activity and can also act as the model law for uniting contract laws of nations. In this aspect, PICC can be evaluated to have considerably achieved enactment purpose of previous intention. However, additional topics that had not been accepted in the revised edition of PICC remain as assignments requiring solution, such as analysis and acceptance problem of comparative law, PR of PICC unfamiliar even to the relative parties of international trade and application in international contract, and absorption problem as model law in various domestic laws.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.191-209
• /
• 2013

The amount of international trade conducted through Hong Kong (HK) is increasing, thus rendering the legal framework governing contracts of sale between Mainland China (China) and HK is of particular importance. The status of HK under the CISG is currently unclear, however. First, the CISG entered into force in China in 1988. This important development had no legal effect for HK though as China lacked the power to enter into international conventions for HK. Second, the "Letter of Notification" deposited to the Secretary-General of the UN referred a list of treaties to be applied to HK, taking effect from July 1, 1997. This list, however, made no mention of the CISG. Third, China made a reservation in Article 95 of the CISG. Pursuant to Article 1(1)(b) of the CISG, the CISG cannot apply to HK. As a result, the Chinese Arbitral Tribunal apply the Chinese law according to the closest connection principle with the contract. In this case, attention must be given to the different result to which the CISG is applied. Liability for damages pursuant to the Chinese Contract Law (CCL) is just the same as Article 74 CISG, but CCL does not govern the case with substitute transaction and without substitute transaction when the contract is avoided. Therefore, the contract should be governed by the CISG from a business perspective when a contract is concluded between China and HK; otherwise, a promisee could not be fully compensated for all loss incurred.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제39권
• /
• pp.179-220
• /
• 2008

The notion of the 'court' is most unique to ICC arbitration. This paper focuses on what the court is and how it works and what the role and the duties of the Court under the ICC arbitration imply for the KCAB International Arbitration Rules. The Court is an administrative body that administers arbitrations taking place under the ICC Rules of Arbitration. The Court consists of 126 members from 88 countries around the world. Court members participate in decision-making process by way of attending the committee sessions and plenary sessions. At the Court's committee sessions, the Court fixes advance on costs; reviews the prima facie existence of arbitration agreements; fixes the place and language of arbitration, and the number of arbitrator(s); confirms and approves arbitrators; scrutinizes draft awards, determines the costs of arbitration; decides on extensions related to Terms of Reference, draft awards and correction and interpretation of the awards. At the Court's plenary sessions, the Court performs only two responsibilities: the challenge or replacement of arbitrators or the scrutiny of draft awards. The Court is required to scrutinize draft awards involving states or state entities, drafts with huge amounts in dispute or complex technical or legal questions, and as well as draft awards to which a dissenting opinion has been attached. Turning to the KCAB International Arbitration Rules, Article 1(3) provides that the KCAB shall establish an International Arbitration Committee. Further, it is provided that the KCAB shall consult with the said Committee with respect to challenge and replacement/removal of arbitrators pursuant to Article 1(3). The notion and role of the International Arbitration Committee was originally adapted from the Court to ICC arbitration, but its role was quite reduced in the process of enactment of its Rules. Accordingly, I examined the detailed roles of the Court to ICC arbitration in this paper and hereby suggest that the KCAB International Arbitration Rules shall be amended in the following ways: The Secretariat of the KCAB shall: fix advance on costs at the first stage and the costs of arbitration at the final stage of the proceedings; determine the number of arbitrators; review the prima facie of existence of arbitration agreement; confirm arbitrators; decide extensions related to time table, draft awards and correction and interpretation of the awards. I, also, suggest that the arbitral tribunals shall fix the place of arbitration and the language of arbitration and make a final decision on the validity of arbitration agreement. With regard to the International Arbitration Committee, it is desirable for its Rules to empower the Committee to recommend any prospective arbitrator and to review and decide challenge and replacement/removal of arbitrators.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2020

If the interim disposition of the Arbitration Tribunal is not immediately enforceable, it will only give pressure to the other party concerned and the arbitration could work against him if the other party fails to implement it. If enforcement is impossible, the disposition will have no practical effect or practical benefit. In addition, if a system is contrary to its unique characteristics or nature, it will not function as a system or it will become an unnecessary decoration. There is no room for argument that the above provisions are wrong or misinterpreted if the temporary disposition in arbitration cannot be characterized by its characteristics, such as its provisionality, urgency, incidentality, or invasibility. As attracting international arbitration cases can create enormous added value for the national economy, countries are scrambling to create a mediating-friendly legal environment in their countries, and Korea has been more active in arbitration than in the past. Despite various efforts, however, attracting international arbitration cases is still a long way off. Therefore, Korea should create a mediating-friendly, legal environment to attract arbitration cases. There are many reasons why arbitration is activated internationally, but the most important of them is that it is easier to approve and execute. The use of the approval and execution of heavy court is, in turn, the most important requirement of a mediating-friendly environment. It is natural that temporary dispositions made in arbitration should be as easy to approve and enforce as in the case of arbitration. In addition, it is natural for the parties to consider the use of approval and execution when deciding where to mediate or when applying for arbitration; thus, the degree of ease of execution, along with the procedural use of arbitration or provisional disposition, will be a measure of the likelihood of hosting international arbitration cases, as well as the activation of arbitration.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2007

The International Chamber of Commerce has been the world's leading organization in the field of international commercial dispute resolution. Established in 1923 as the arbitration body of ICC, the International Court of Arbitration has pioneered international commercial arbitration as it is known today. The ICC International Court of Arbitration is the world's foremost institution in the resolution of international business disputes. While most arbitration institutions are regional or national in scope, the ICC Court is truly international. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in ICC Rules of Arbitration as follows; First, before the actual merits of the case can be addressed, the Arbitral Tribunal must first draw up the Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference should include the particulars listed in the ICC Rules. Apart from the full names and description of the parties and arbitrators, the place of arbitration and a summary of the parties' respective claims, they contain particulars concerning the applicable procedural rules and any other provisions required to make the Award enforceable at law Second, the Scrutiny is a fundamental feature of ICC arbitration and is one that distinguishes it from the other major international arbitration rules. The scrutiny system has two aspects ; the first is to identify or modify the defects of form, while the second is to draw the arbitrators' attention to points of substance. Third, as soon as practicable, the Court fixes an advance on costs intended to cover the estimated fees and expenses of the arbitrators, as well as the administrative expenses of ICC. Specially, the advance on costs fixed by the Court shall be payable in equal shares by the Claimant and Respondent. Finally, the parties are also free to select the arbitrator or arbitrators of their choice. The Court or the Secretary General confirms arbitrators nominated by the parties. Taking a step forward, to upgrade the quality of the award of KCAB, it is desirable to consider how to incorporate the main contents of the ICC Arbitration into Korea Commercial Arbitration Rules.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2012

Arbitration is an essential methods of settlement for disputes in international commercial transaction. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have been in force after adoption in 1976. Over the 30 years, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules have been modeled for domestic and international arbitration institutes for setting and revision on their arbitration rules. UNCITRAL Committee has published the revised Arbitration Rules which entered into force after 15 August 2010. Therefore new version of arbitration rules are substituted for the previous version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 since its enforcement. The revised arbitration rules of UNCITRAL have been changed in various items for convergence with new trends and modern practices on arbitration including information communication and technology. The revision of arbitration rules focused on resolving problems in practice and codifying best practice to enhance the efficiency of arbitration conducted under the rules. There are considerable in a number of important respects on the removing the restricted in writing requirement for information technology, adapting the multiparties arbitration, joinder arbitration, truncated arbitral tribunal and adjustment in terms and condition and construction simply. Also a number of provisions have been refined, varied and clarified with new articles included. Conclusively the new revised arbitration rules fill a number of gaps which became apparent in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 to bring into line with new modern practices of international arbitration rules in international commercial disputes. This paper focus on the study the problems and inspired points on significant revised provisions and its considerable points in arbitration environment. This paper is approaching to the comparisons of UNCITRAL revised Arbitration Rules 2010 with previous Arbitration Rules 1976 of UNCITRAL and International Arbitration Rules 2011 of KCAB.