• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.107-128
• /
• 2023

International arbitration is a widely preferred alternative dispute resolution mechanism for many desirable characteristics, such as, party autonomy, procedural flexibility, ability of parties to select their arbitrators, as well as, finality of arbitral awards, among others. However, because arbitral tribunals derive their authority and jurisdiction from the parties' agreement(s) to arbitrate their dispute(s), arbitral tribunals lack coercive powers that national courts have. At times, arbitral tribunals have to deal with circumstances of non-production and/or spoliation of evidence, and due to the lack of coercive authority, it may be challenging to compel such recalcitrant parties to produce the relevant evidence and/or witnesses. Therefore, adverse inferences drawn against the recalcitrant parties may be the most effective sanctions. This article explores the sources of authority for arbitral tribunals to make such adverse inferences and argues for a precise set of rules or standard to be consistently applied by the arbitral tribunals in order to increase predictability in arbitral proceedings. Additionally, some of the critical issues when considering adverse inferences as sanctions are discussed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.65-88
• /
• 2019

The ICC International Court of Arbitration ('the ICC') has published the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration ('2019 Revised Note) which came into force on the 1st of January 2019. The 2019 Revised Note is aimed at providing parties and arbitral tribunals with practical guidance regarding the conduct of arbitrations pursuant to the ICC Arbitration Rules as well as the practices of the ICC. Unless otherwise stipulated, the 2019 Revised Note applies to all ICC arbitration cases, regardless of the version of the ICC Arbitration Rules, in accordance with which they are conducted. The most noteworthy amendment is the introduction of provisions on a new mandatory transparency system by setting forth the publication of the arbitration case data and arbitral awards, maintaining the rule stipulating the provision of information regarding arbitral tribunal under the ICC 2016 Note. Among others, the 2019 Revised Note provides that parties and arbitrators in ICC arbitrations accept that ICC awards made as of the 1st of January 2019 may be published, excluding some exceptions. Under this circumstance, this paper i) explains five amendments of the 2019 ICC Revised Note, ii) examines major issues regarding the publication of information of arbitral tribunal and awards, iii) makes a comparative analysis of that attitude of 11 international arbitration institutions, and lastly iv) suggests recommendations for the Korean arbitration community.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.55-81
• /
• 2021

Awarding interest in international arbitration remains one of the most challenging areas for tribunals and parties given the myriad of issues that arise. This article seeks to provide an overview of how international arbitral tribunals grant delay interest. It reviews the various issues that international arbitral tribunals face concerning pre-award and post-award interest, determining the appropriate interest rate, surrounding simple or compound interest, and the complex issue of choice of law. A comparative context is provided by surveying the laws of major jurisdictions from both the common law and civil law and the regulations of leading arbitral institutions. It concludes with a review of the law, jurisprudence, and practice in Korea related to delay interest and how Korean tribunals under the KCAB Domestic and International Rules have determined delay interest in recent years.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.27-44
• /
• 2024

The lack of consistency and predictability of arbitral awards in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement ("ISDS") mechanism has long been a subject of criticism. In international investment disputes, arbitral tribunals have frequently come up with different interpretations and results on similar investment agreement provisions. The arbitral tribunal's inconsistent decisions raised concerns not only among the parties to the investment dispute but also amongthe arbitral tribunals in other cases, which ultimately led to legal inconsistencies in international investment law. Arbitration awards may have some degree of disagreement in interpretation. However, the systemic inconsistencies that pervade ISDS risk undermining the purpose of the investment agreement system, which is to provide a predictable and stable framework to protect andpromote foreign investment while maintaining a balance with host state regulations. Therefore, this study proposes a plan to resolve this discrepancy and review standards for practical application. Reform of the ISDS mechanism could be a viable option to reduce, to some extent, the inconsistencies in interpretation, if not completely eliminate them. Reforms such as establishingguidelines, promoting cooperation between arbitral tribunals, and codifying the norms of the agreement can provide a means of reducing interpretive inconsistencies and strengthening the legitimacy of the ISDS mechanism. Reforming the ISDS mechanism will require all stakeholders to carefully consider the issues and the scope, nature, and feasibility of eachpotential reform.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.27-66
• /
• 2005

From the reunification of Germany we can learn much for the reunification of Korea. That particularly applies for the dispute resolution of the trade relations between both states. The domestic trade relation, which was the only contractually regulated relation between two states for a long period of time, played a crucial role in the reunification of Germany, In this research paper, we examine how the economic disputes in divided Germany had been settled, and consider for the amicable economic relations between south and north Korea, what can we learn from that. In Germany, the disputes from the trade relations could be settled via the civil procedure, because the judicial codes of both German states were the same until 1975, However, that does not apply in Korea, as two Koreas have another law and another court system, from the start. We argue that arbitration is the best way for the completion of the economic disputes. Besides the general advantages of the arbitral procedure, the arbitration is particularly suitable to regulate the economic disputes from Korea-Korea relations, because of glaring differences of the legal status and reality of both countries. Furthermore, the standing arbitral tribunals would be in the economic relations between two Koreas more effectively than the ad-hoc arbitral tribunals. The ad-hoc arbitration generally requires a lot of time to setting up an arbitral Oibunal. For the rapid and obligatory settlement of dispute, the Convention of Currency, Economic and Social Union between West and East Germany 1990(Staatsvefrag zur Wahrungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialunion zwischen der Bundesrepublik und der DDR) also planned the institutional arbitration. The organizational support of the internal-Korean arbitration can take place via already existing institution, namely in south Korea 'The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board' Periodic decision reports and publication of substantial awards at the early stage seem appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.53-74
• /
• 2019

Due to the increasingly popular dissatisfaction regarding the inefficiency of arbitral proceedings, the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration, also known as the Prague Rules, was launched in December 2018, with the purpose of increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings by encouraging arbitral tribunals to take a more proactive role in conducting their procedures. In this article, the provisions of the Prague Rules are examined, in light of those of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, in order to determine the efficacy of the Prague Rules on enhancing the efficiency in arbitral proceedings. The author concludes that more specific and detailed provisions, with respect to what the Rules means by such a "proactive arbitral tribunal," should have been explicitly included in light of the Rules' repeated emphasis on such. Also, the prospective outlook on the Prague Rules is not entirely clear as the text does not appear to fill in the gaps in other widely utilized arbitration rules or to supplement them in a satisfying way. However, given that only a short amount of time has passed since the launch late last year, only time will reveal how effective the Prague Rules will be in increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings, in accordance with its intended effect.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.137-163
• /
• 2018

Efficiency in the arbitration proceedings and finality of arbitral awards have been key attractive features of arbitration. While finality of awards is due to the fact that there is no appeals mechanism in arbitration, other recourses that are available against arbitral awards threaten the integrity of finality of arbitral awards. This article examines some of these recourses, such as, setting aside of arbitral awards pursuant to the UNCITRAL Model Law, scrutiny of draft awards by arbitration institutions, and annulment proceedings of ICSID Convention awards and discusses the implications of these measures in relation to assuring finality of arbitral awards in international commercial and investment arbitration cases. In order to more effectively respect the disputing parties' autonomy in choosing arbitration, and also to give as much deference to arbitral tribunals' decisions and their discretion in reaching their decisions, it is proposed that an official appellate mechanism would be preferred over the undermining of finality of arbitral awards that have been taking place through the currently available exclusive recourses against arbitral awards.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2013

The interpretation and application of investment treaties takes place mostly by ad hoc tribunals. Their composition varies from case to case. But in interpreting and applying investment treaties are bound to exist on a ground rule and coherent criteria. Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. When interpreting investment treaties, (i) most tribunals is based on Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, (ii) tribunals rely on previous decisions, (iii) tribunals resort to travaux pr$\acute{e}$paratoires, (iv) tribunals consider the interpretative statement. When applying investment treaties, (i) treaties apply only in relation to acts or events that occurred after their entry into force, (ii) tribunals have applied different inter-temporal rules to jurisdictional clauses and substantive provisions in treaties, (iii) the relevant date for purposes of jurisdiction is the date of the institution of proceedings, (iv) Under the ICSID convention, the host state and investor's nationality must be a party to the convention on the date the proceedings are instituted. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in the interpretation and application standards of investment treaties. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2014

Ever since its introduction in the 1927 ICC Arbitration Rules, scrutiny of awards by the ICC Court has been a cornerstone feature of ICC arbitration. Most players involved in the arbitral process are likely to concede that a certain level of review of arbitral awards is both desirable and beneficial. Indeed, proponents among the users are frequently influenced in their choice of the ICC as the administering arbitral institution, based on their strong conviction that time and money invested in the resolution of a dispute is ultimately only well spent if awards are voluntarily complied with or at least less susceptible to be set aside. By providing a look behind the scenes of the scrutiny process, the article does away with tales of excessive intervention on behalf of the arbitral institution when reviewing and approving awards and demystifies the role played by the ICC Court throughout its close interaction with arbitral tribunals operating under the ICC Rules. The article further argues that the scrutiny process can be a highly efficient tool that helps to increase the quality and enforceability of awards rendered under the aegis of the ICC.