• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

국제상사중재를 다루는 중재판정부의 중재인은 당사자들 간의 유효한 합의를 통하여 구속력 있는 중재판정을 행사할 권한을 가진다. 중재계약에 다른 정함이 없는 한 중재인의 판정권에 대한 결정은 중재인 자신이 내린다. 중재인은 중재합의에 의하여 그 권한이 부여된 사건에 대해서만 권한을 갖게 되나, 명시적으로 그 권한에 따라야 하는 사건 외에 당해 사건을 해결하기 위하여 처리하지 않으면 안 될 모든 문제, 즉 당해 사건과 절단될 수 없는 형태로 연계되어 있는 문제 또는 그 부차적인 조건의 문제를 해결하여야 하는 책임을 지게 된다. 중재판정부는 그 자율적인 권한범위를 규율하는 권한을 가지며, 그 권한 속에는 중재합의의 존부 또는 효력에 관한 것도 포함된다. 중재인의 판정권에 이의가 있는 당사자는 법원에 중재계약의 부존재 무효 확인을 청구할 수 있고, 중재판정이 이미 내려진 경우에는 중재판정취소의 소를 제기하거나, 집행판결에서 이의를 제기할 수 있다. 우리 중재법의 입장에서 국제중재판정의 판정기준에 대해 는 중재판정부는 당사자들이 지정한 법에 따라 중재판정을 내려야 하며, 특정 국가의 법 또는 법체계가 지정된 경우에 달리 명시되지 아니하는 한 그 국가의 국제사법이 아닌 분쟁의 실체법을 지정한 것으로 보고 있다. 국제중재의 법적 안정성, 예측가능성의 관점에서 실정법을 그 판단의 규준으로 삼는다. 한국의 국제중재의 특성은 국제성 중립성, 보편성을 보장받는 점이다. 중재인 구성원은 세계 각국의 국적을 가진 전문 중재인들이 참가하고 있다. 중재절차에 있어서도 중재인은 실체법이나 절차법, 또는 법률의 상충에 관계없이 어느 특정법률을 적용하도록 강요받지 않고 각각의 경우에 가장 적합한 법률에 따르며 중재판정부의 진행절차는 국제중재규칙에 의해 규율된다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-70
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and discussions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules that have been discussed and considered by the Working Group. At its thirty-ninth session (New York, 19 June-7 July 2006), the Commission agreed that, in respect of future work of the Working Group, priority be given to a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976). At its forty-fifth session (Vienna, 11-15 September 2006), the Working Group undertook to identify areas where a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules might be useful. At that session, it was considered that the focus of the revision should be on updating the Rules to meet changes that had taken place over the last thirty years in arbitral practice. The largely amended provisions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are as follows : Notice of arbitration and response to the notice of arbitration (Article 3), Designating and appointing authorities (Article 4 bis), November of arbitrators (Article 5), Appointment of arbitrations (Article 6), Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration (Article 7 bis), Challenge of arbitrators (Article 9), Replacement of an arbitrator (Article 13), Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Article 21), Interim measures (Article 26), Form and effect of the award (Article 32), and Liability of arbitrators (Proposed additional provisions). There are some differences between the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In order to jnternationalize the Korea's commercial arbitration system, it is desirable that the main articles of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should be admitted to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In conclusion, the Commission was generally of the view of any revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should not alter the structure of the text, its spirit, its drafting style, and should respect the flexibility of the text rather than make it more complex. The Working Group agreed that harmonizing the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law should not be automatic but rather considered only where appropriate.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.55-76
• /
• 2013

This study aims to analyze the main features of Mongolian arbitration system compared with Korean Arbitration Law which was revised under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law. On the basis of this comparative study, certain differences are suggested: First, the environment of Mongolian arbitration is still insufficient in terms of its operation and usage at the international level. Second, the Mongol National Arbitration Court has established Ad-hoc Arbitration Rules and has promoted Ad-hoc Arbitration although it is an institutional arbitration organization. Third, the arbitration objects are defined as the types of tangible and intangible assets in Mongolia which are different from those of the Korean Arbitration Law. Accordingly, court and officer disputes, family disputes, labor-management relations, and criminal matters are covered by the arbitration objects. Fourth, Mongol Arbitration Law specifies the following persons disqualified for arbitrator appointment: the member of the Constitutional Court, judge, procurator, inquiry officer, investigator, court decision enforcement officer, attorney, or notary who has previously rendered legal service to any party of the disputes, and any officials who are prohibited by laws to be engaged in positions above the scope of their duties. Fifth, the arbitrator selection and appointment criteria should be documented, and the arbitrator should have the ability to resolve the disputes independently and fairly and achieve concord from both parties. Sixth, if there is no agreement between the parties, the arbitration language should be Mongolian, and the arbitral tribunal has no power to decide on it. Seventh, despite the agreement for a documentary hearing between the parties, there should be provided opportunities for an oral hearing if either of the parties requires it. Eighth, if the parties do not understand the language of the arbitration, the parties can directly ask the translation service. They should also keep secrets in the process of arbitration. Ninth, the cancellation of arbitral award is allowed by the application of the parties, not by the authority of the court. Except for the nine differences above, the Mongolian arbitration system is similar to that of the Korean Arbitration Law. This paper serves to contribute to the furtherance in trade relationship between Mongolia and Korea after the rapid and efficient resolution of disputes.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.144-161
• /
• 2016

A unanimous Award has been issued on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China. The current security issues in the regional sea shall be carefully reflected to anticipate whether the Award could resolve the existing political conflict or rather will grow military tension in the region. The Award clearly directs the scope of delimiting maritime jurisdiction to coastal States in the Southern China sea, so it seems to help facilitating finding resolutions of regional disputes on maritime boundaries. On the other hand, there are several limitations in reality to implementation of the decisions included in the Award. USA could use the decisions to restrict military activities and exercise of unilateral maritime jurisdiction by China in the region, while China shall encounter guilt to illegitimacy of its activities as well as shaking the legal foundation of its policy in the region. Then the resolution of this dispute through application of international law would rather cause more political confusion. The intension of bringing the case to an international court were to resolve political difficulties. If, however, the political difficulties are not properly reflected in the legal decisions, such decision would possibly raise more political risks.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.115-130
• /
• 2016

The security environment surrounding the East Asian seas is rapidly changing due to the naval arms race among coastal states. The arms race is likely to worsen the security dilemma of the countries involved, thus increasing the chances for armed conflicts. It is too early to tell how the contemporary naval arms race in the region will evolve. But, for sure, the level of uncertainty is increasingly becoming high and intense. At the same time, there is emerging a legal warfare or lawfare among the rival countries. In particular, the United States and China have been involved in a serious debate about the nature and scope of the right of innocent passage and freedom of navigation in other countries' maritime zones. In collaboration with its regional allies, the United States has also put normative pressures on China with its excessive claims in the South China Sea. The latest arbitral tribunal case between the Philippines and China illustrates the point. With both arms race and normative competition in play, the future of East Asian maritime security will remain very complex and uncertain.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.125-154
• /
• 2012

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published revised rules of arbitration, which come into force on 1 January 2012 (the ICC Rules 2012). The ICC Rules 2012 apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 January 2012, unless the parties have agreed to submit their arbitration to the rules in effect on the date of their arbitration agreement (Article 6(1)). The ICC Rules 2012 explicitly require both the arbitrators and the parties to make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. The changes will force participants to define more aspects of their claims and outline the merits of the dispute earlier on in the process. The Rules also contain new penalties for behaving in a way that undermines the process's efficiency. The new Rules permit the tribunal, when making allocating costs, to take into account the extent to which each party has conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Entirely new provisions relate to the emergency arbitrators, case management, and multi-party arbitrations. The ICC Rules 2012 take into account developments in arbitration practice and procedure, and in information technology, since the last revision of the rules in 1998, the aim being to provide modern and flexible procedures that promote efficiency in the arbitral process.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.3-34
• /
• 2013

In the international sales contract, long-term contracts often face hardship in fulfilling the original contract terms by relevant parties due to rapid change and uncertainty of political and economic circumstance. In this case, party who faces hardship of fulfillment terminates contract or demands adaptation to contract condition but if opponent doesn't accept this, it proceeds to commercial dispute needing legal interpretation. Generally it is wise to set forth governing law in contract between parties in the case of international contract, for legal stability. One of universal governing law which relevant parties select by agreement to solve economical hardship of fulfillment is PICC. PICC defines the hardship in detail for renegotiation on following hardship of fulfillment unexpected. In the case of failing renegotiation, Court(arbitral tribunal) conducts termination to contract or adaptation to contract condition through arbitration or mediation. In conclusion, when signing international long-term contract, it is desirous to handle dispute effectively by inserting provisions which can deal with economical hardship in contract or defining PICC as governing law in the case of hardship incurred. It is because it is realistic to handle dispute smoothly to the extent that both parties can be satisfied in the case of hardship incurred, though international contract should be fulfilled.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.239-257
• /
• 2011

This article examines the requirements of Article 37 of the ICDR International Arbitration Rules and issues that could arise if a party petitions a U.S. Federal Court to enforce an emergency arbitrator's Article 37 decision to grant pre-arbitration provisional relief. On May 1, 2006, ICDR introduced a new procedure for the granting of emergency arbitral relief under its ICDR Rules. The procedure enables a party to apply for emergency interim relief before the appointment of an arbitrator or tribunal to adjudicate the merits of the dispute. Instead, the application for emergency relief is considered by an emergency arbitrator appointed by the ICDR. In short, the ICDR has quickly appointed emergency arbitrator and resolved a challenge to an appointment within 36 hours. In addition, the emergency decisions have been issued within just a couple of weeks. In particular, we looked at what would happen after Article 37 emergency relief is granted. Based on my examination of U.S. cases on the enforceability of interim awards and orders, We conclude that U.S. courts would enforce Article 37 interim measures, whether they are characterized by the emergency arbitrator as an interim order or award. Where the situation warrants, arbitration executives should embrace and use emergency relief procedure of ICDR Rules.