• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.109-131
• /
• 2010

Investment Agreement is to be a part of FTA, as negotiating together both trade and investment. For example, it has a separate chapter about investment in KORUS FTA contract and is more detailed and inclusive than BIT contents which are traditional investment provisions. It is called to the investment norm of FT A. The investment agreement lures a foreign investment by providing the environment which is stable to the foreign investors. Hence, it plans in goal for the economic development of the home country. In international investment, the arbitration award cases are coming out to be divided into two parts applying MFN provisions in investor protective principles and dispute resolution process; the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. In the case of RosInvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation awarded in 2007, the arbitration tribunal interprets that the application scope of MFN provisions contain the more lucrative dispute provision than other BITs without limitations in entity right of the investor. This judgment is the same view as arbitration tribunal position of Maffezini case. The arbitration tribunal of Plama case has kept out an assertion magnifying the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction. That is, for applying more inclusive investor-nation resolution method from different treaty, tribunal mentioned that MFN provision had to see clearly a point of applying the investor-nation dispute resolution method. Dispute resolution process providing inclusive MFN provision has both the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. It needs ceaselessly to do the monitoring about cases of arbitration award. In conclusion, the point where MFN provisions are applied conclusively is recognized, but it is still controversial whether or not to magnify the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal applying MFN provisions. Therefore, it does not exist clear principle in the theory or in the award eases about the application scope for entity protection provision of MFN. Hence, The Korean government of Korea and local autonomous entities needs to keep their eyes on the trend of the international arbitration award cases in relation to the investment dispute for the future. Also, Korean government or local self-governing group must consider MFN provisions when they make a contract of international investment treaty such as writing concretely the application of MFN provisions from KORUS FTA.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.23-42
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to analyze the characteristics of Vietnam's arbitration system and to present measures that companies can utilize in practice. This research considers KCAB International Arbitration Rules, focusing on amendments to the Decree on Vietnam Commercial Arbitration Act and amendments to the VIAC Arbitration Rules. To sum up some features, the decree on the Commercial Arbitration Act simplified the registration procedures for arbitration centers and their branches and made the publication of court decisions and the recognition of the approval and execution of foreign arbitration courts, thereby enhancing transparency. First of all, the decree on the Commercial Arbitration Act simplified registration procedures for arbitration centers and their branches. In addition, the court strengthened transparency by officially announcing court judgments, recognition, and decisions. Next, there are some points to note in the arbitration rules of the VIAC. First of all, the rules of expedited procedure lack clarity. Next, parties should make a separate document for counterclaim and submit it with a statement of defense. In addition, the arbitral language may choose multiple languages by the Arbitral Tribunal unless the parties agree. Therefore, companies need to take a closer look at their understanding of the international arbitration system, which is mainly used in international disputes, and the characteristics of the Vietnamese arbitration system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2001

Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. Arbitration has become increasingly popular in settling international and domestic commercial disputes nowadays. The importance of arbitration agreement cannot be overemphasized. It is the most reasonable way to settle commercial disputes. There are two types in arbitration agreement. one is arbitration clause, the other is submission agreement. The arbitration agreement must be made in writing, in addition, other communication instruments shall be considered as effective arbitration agreement if they are properly documented. Over the past few decades, a considerable number of studies have been conducted on the legal property of arbitration agreement in Germany and Japan. Its legal property is aspect of substantial law contract. The basis of arbitration agreement is the principle of party autonomy. The important effect of arbitration agreement is to preclude jurisdiction from national court. The respondent shall raise a plea not later than when submitting his first defense on the merits of the action. As positive effect of arbitration agreement, the court must support the conduct of arbitral proceedings and arbitrator can be appointed upon request of a party.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.85-106
• /
• 2017

This article deals with the relationship between arbitration and state court in each procedural stage. As most legal systems over the world respect arbitration agreement, the relationship between arbitration and state courts puts emphasis on party autonomy and provides the independent power of arbitration agreement tribunal (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Most institutional arbitration rules the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Modern national laws have similar provisions based on Art. 16 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this regards the author throws a question in Chapter II, whether the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, namely the ability of the tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction is worth while persisting, and whether the Kompetenz-Kompetenz-agreement should be regarded as valid, with the conclusion, that this doctrine should concede to the power of state court and that Kompetenz-Kompetenz-Klausel is invalid. In Chapter III the author discusses the issue of whether the breach of an arbitration agreement could lead to the compensation of damage. Although the author stands for the procedural character of arbitration agreement, he offers a proposal that the breach of an arbitration agreement bring about the compensation of damage. The issue of anti-suit injunction is discussed also in this Chapter. He is against the approval of anti-suit injunction based on an arbitration agreement resisting the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권4호
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2023

국제상사중재에서 중재판정을 효율적으로 집행하기 위해 중재판정부가 중재판정을 내리기 전에 분쟁 당사자의 권리 혹은 재산을 즉각적으로 보호해주는 임시적 처분조치는 반드시 필요한 제도이고 많은 국가에서 중재판정부가 임시적 처분조치를 내릴 수 있도록 하고 있다. 중국상사중재에서도 임시적 처분조치를 인정하고는 있으나 중국의 경우에는 그 절차상 법원의 개입이 반드시 필요한데 이는 국제중재의 발전 방향과 맞지 않는다는 비판이 있다. 하지만 최근 중국도 중재활성화 측면에서 주요 중재기관들의 규칙을 개정함으로써 임시적 처분조치 부분에서 법원의 간섭을 최소화하는 방향으로 변화를 추구하고 있다. 이에 본 논문은 상사중재에서 임시적 처분의 국제적 추세를 먼저 살펴보고 중국 상사중재에서 임시적 처분조치가 어떤 방향으로 발전해 나가는지를 관련 사례와 법규를 분석하여 살펴보고자 한다. 이러한 연구를 통하여 한국 기업이 중국기업과 상사중재로 분쟁을 해결하고자 할 때 어떤 방식으로 임시적 처분 제도를 활용해야 하는지에 대한 실무적인 시사점을 제시하고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제36권
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2007

This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.53-89
• /
• 2006

At its thirty-second session(Vienna, 17 May-4 June 1999), the UNCITRAL decided that the priority items for the Working Group(Arbitration and Conciliation) should include enforceability of interim measures and the requirement of written (on for the arbitration agreement. The Working Group, at its forty-third session(Vienna, 3-7 October 2005), it had undertaken a detailed review of the text of the revised article 17 of UNCTTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and it had resumed discussions on a draft model legislative provision revising article 7, paragraph (2) of UNCITRAL Model Law. The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and issues of the draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders, and on the form of arbitration agreement which the Working Group discussed and adopted at its forth-fourth session(New York, 23-27 January 2006). The draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders are composed of the following provisions : Article 17-power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures; article 17 bis-conditions for granting interim measures; article 17 ter-applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders; article 17 quater-specific regime for preliminary orders; article 17 quinquies- modification, suspension, termination; article 17 sexies-provision of security; article 17 septies-disclosure; article 17 octies-costs and damages; article 17 novies recognition and enforcements; article 17 decies-grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement; article 17 undecies-court-ordered interim measures. There are the following issues in the draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders : form of issuance of an interim measures in article 17(2); conditions for granting interim measures in article 17 bis; purpose, function and legal regime of preliminary orders in article 17 ter; obligation of arbitral tribunal to give notice, and non-enforceability of preliminary orders in article 17 quater; burden of proof, interplay between article 17 decies and article 34, and decision on the recognition and enforcement of the interim measures in article 17 decies; placement of article 17 undecies; amendment of scope exception of application in article 1(2). The draft legislative provisions on the form of arbitration agreement are composed of the following provisions : article 7(1) definition of arbitration agreement; article 7(2) arbitration agreement in writing; article 7(3) arbitration agreement if its terms(content) are (is) recorded in any form; article 7(4) arbitration agreement by an electronic communication; article 7(5) arbitration agreement in an exchange of statements of claim and defence; article 7(6) reference to any document containing an arbitration clause. There are the following issues in the draft legislative provisions on the form of arbitration agreement : arbitration agreement in writing in article 7(2); terms or contents of arbitration agreement in article 7(3); arbitration agreement by electronic communication in article 7(4); existence of arbitration agreement in article 7(5); reference to any document containing an arbitration clause in article 7(6); the alternative proposal on article 7; amendment to article 35(2).