• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2016

Lately each country tends to provide neutrality and ease of enforcement in order to settle disputes related to international trade through commercial arbitration. In order to expand the use of arbitration systems, most countries accept arbitration agreements as an effective tool agreed between parties that express their intent to settle disputes by the arbitration. It is applied equally to selective arbitration agreements and parties can select either arbitration or lawsuit to settle disputes based on the contract intent for selective arbitration agreements. However, China does not admit the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreements. Chinese courts regard selective arbitration agreements as not valid because the contract of a selective arbitration agreement between parties is not a definite expression to only use the arbitration and there is no exclusion of court jurisdiction. Therefore, the study attempts to consider effective conditions for selective arbitration agreements in the Chinese arbitration act and other relevant regulations, and also verifies the judgment by Chinese courts on relevant disputes. As a result, the study explores some problems and implications of Chinese selective arbitration agreements and suggests some precautions in case Korean companies pursue selective arbitration agreements with Chinese enterprises and investors.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2012

This paper investigates the U.S. courts'attitudes toward the legal doctrine of adhesion contracts, which have been employed as contract defenses by individual consumers who have entered into consumer arbitration agreements with businesses. Some requirements have been added to the sole adhesiveness of the arbitration clause that can invalidate the arbitration clause, including unconscionability and unreasonable harshness. It seems that the U.S. courts have moved toward a more tightened stance in evaluating the validity of consumer arbitration clauses, favoring consumer arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.1-35
• /
• 2013

In the 21th century, its important role in international commercial disputes has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because commercial disputes have become more complicated and varied with their quantitative increase, it is important that they be settled in a reasonable and rapid manner. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is now regarded as one of the most effective dispute resolution methods for the settling of commercial disputes and merits notice. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which two parties agree to have their dispute resolved by one or more arbitrators and thereby avoid what could be costly and time-consuming court battles. Often contracts mandate that disputes be settled through arbitration. These arbitration clauses also frequently prohibit plaintiffs from banding together to bring an action on behalf of a larger class. An arbitration agreement is an agreement by parties to summit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them with respect to their defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. According to the Supreme Court, general elective arbitration clauses may be considered valid in light of all the relevant facts. Arbitration has been the subject of a great deal of research and the scope of effect in arbitration agreements is a promising avenue for future research.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.321-351
• /
• 2004

According to increase of Franchise Agreements, troubles related to those agreements and trading acts occur frequently. As Franchise system had come from Western countries, franchise agreement troubles tend to international disputes. In fact, those parties entered into a franchise agreement prefer arbitration to lawsuit as a dispute resolution system because arbitration is easy to risk-management for cost and time. The essential conditions for Franchise agreements are as follows ; for Franchise to grant Intellectual Properties to Franchisee, to give an impression of the same company between Franchise and Franchisee, to control and support Franchisee, for Franchisee to be an independent merchant, and to pay Franchiser license fee. Because Franchise Agreement is also based on liberty of contract, Franchise and Franchisee could enter into any kind of agreement. However, Franchiser can make an unfair agreement abusing a position of advantage. This paper check those unfair terms and conditions in Franchise agreement. Once they enter into an agreement, they should fulfil their contract. In case of trouble on performing the contract, both of them have to discuss to solve that trouble faithfully. But, they enter into either lawsuit or arbitration in accordance with agreement when they can't reach a decision in general. Specially, which is the most popular dispute resolution hands in case of Intellectual Property License agreement. General international Franchise Agreements have arbitration terms, but there is other case such as separate Arbitration Agreement if the want, which is separate from Franchise License agreement, so even though Franchise License agreement is invalidated, Arbitration agreement continues to exist, This paper reviews Franchise system and the terms of arbitration in Franchise agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.87-122
• /
• 1998

This study reports on the Arbitration system in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration commission (CIETAC) and the International Arbitration problems of Korea and China. The Chines laws including Arbitration laws are influenced by the civil Code system Particulary the German system. China is contracting state of the U N Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958 New York Convention), which became effective in the China April 22, 1987. International Commercial Arbitration is popular in China. CIETAC is the sole International Commercial Arbitration body in China. CIETAC has two sub-commissions, on is shen zhem S E Z and the other in shanghai. The CIETAC rules, are similar to the rules in effect in Countries using a civil Code system. Both an agreement to submit an existing dispute to Arbitration and an Arbitration clause in a contract relating to future disputes are recognizeal as valiad Arbitration agreements. CIETAC has the power to make a decision on disputes concering the validity of the Arbitration agreements, or jurisdiction over a specicific case.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.61-80
• /
• 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision on the case between AT&T and Concepcion, which confirmed the contractuality of a defense as a threshold to distinguish between what is a viable defense for invalidation of consumer arbitration agreement and what is not. In this paper, the adhesiveness of arbitration clause, which is a unique character for consumer arbitration, is investigated in the U.S. as a legal defense to invalidate the consumer arbitration agreements, and its contractuality and related legal doctrines are analyzed. The legal issues of consumer arbitration have been analysed in several legal perspectives including the voluntary, knowing and intelligent doctrine, doctrine of separation, contract of adhesion and the contractuality of defenses. Among all of these, the first three issues are related with arbitration clause, and the last one, the contractuality of defenses, reflects the nature of defenses invalidating the consumer arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2014

As all aspects of international activity have kept growing in good transaction, transnational investments, joint ventures, and the licensing of intellectual property, it is inevitable for disputes to increase across national frontiers. International disputes can be settled by arbitration and ADR. In the situation presented in the paper, any dispute shall be finalized by arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex has become the principal method of resolving disputes in trade, commerce, and investment in accordance with the "Agreement on South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). But the follow-up measures of the said agreements have not been fulfilled. Some prerequisite measures of the Inter-Korean commercial arbitration must be satisfied. In order to proceed with arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, we need to ask the following: Does the status of an arbitrational matter? Should an agreement to arbitrate contain a choice of law clause? Should one provide for one arbitrator or three? How should the arbitrators be selected? What is the relation between party-appointed arbitrators and the presiding arbitrator (neutral arbitrator)? Do arbitrators compromise more than the litigation? Can conciliation be combined with arbitration? To execute the enactment of arbitration regulations, the contents of the Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (South) and the Korea International Trade Arbitration Committee (North), together with the Korean Arbitration Act and External Arbitration Act of North Korea and the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and UNCITRAL l Arbitration Rules are reflected in the Rules. There are many aspects of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration. It is essential to understand key elements; namely, the arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitrator, arbitral proceeding and arbitral award, and enforcement and setting aside of arbitral award. This research deals with five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the introduction. Chapter 2 deals with trade volume between South and North Korea and the kinds of dispute in Gaeseong. Chapter 3 addresses contents and follow-up measures of the agreement on the "South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). Chapter 4 features the problems and tasks of the pertinent agreements. Chapter 5 gives the conclusion. Enabling parties to find an amicable solution to the dispute in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex can lead to a useful and appropriate framework either through direct negotiation or by resorting to conciliation or mediation in accordance with pertinent agreements and follow-up measures contained in the agreements.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2011

This paper investigates on the legal doctrine of "voluntary, knowing, and intelligent" (VKI Doctrine). The main points that were discussed include the history of the VKI doctrine and the US courts' attitudes toward the doctrine. It was also discussed how the VKI doctrine influenced the protection of consumer who agreed to arbitrate with businesses. The US courts' attitudes have shown to be split in application of the VKI doctrine to disputes in the enforceability of arbitration agreement between the consumers and the businesses. In order for the arbitration agreement to be invalidated, the state legislature cannot enact law that are directly targeted toward the validity of arbitration agreement. Rather the contract law in each of the state should be applied to the evaluation of the validity of an arbitration agreement. As the more and more consumers become familiar with the arbitration, the need for the VKI doctrine to protect the individual consumers in arbitration is expected to be diminished in future disputes.