• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.201-216
• /
• 2018

After the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union's Common Commercial Policy now belongs to the exclusive competence area of the EU, including the foreign direct investment (FDI) policy. Regarding the bilateral investment protection treaties (BITs) between the EU Member States, the European Commission is of the view that such BITs should be discarded. On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in the Achmea BV v. Slovakia case that a BIT between the EU Member States, as well as arbitral awards based on that BIT, is not subject to request for preliminary rulings under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and thus they are not compatible with the EU law. However, the judgment did not silence the controversy. Instead, many people questioned the legal reasoning and the legitimacy of judgment, and therefore the problem is still ongoing.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2007

The law of Jus Rerem of China enacted on March 16, 2007 came into force from October 1st, 2007. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem. This means that all three nations of Northeast Asia have formally and substantially similar legal terms and conceptions. Therefore, they will be reciprocally influenced on the legal matters related Jus Rerem. In the year 1949 when China, as a communist country, was originally established without the private ownership system, the law of Jus Rerem was not introduced. Since the reform and the open-economy policy in the year 1978 came into force, it has become important that newly acknowledged private property has been stipulated by the law of Jus Rerem. Arbitration Law of China is enacted on August 31th, 1994 and came into force from September 1st, 1995. It is a basic law which rules Chinese arbitration system. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem, "conformed with the 21st century", by solving a lot of issues in dispute. A socialistic idea, a traditional Chinese idea and realistic conditions of the market economy were integrated into the law of Jus Rerem. It would have a very good effect on the growth and prosperity of China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.93-120
• /
• 2010

In 1978, Chinese reform and opening caused a big changes in Chinese labor relationship. Through reforming and opening, China gave up part of state ownership system and group ownership system, permitted private ownership system, and also opened the way for capitalists to ride again. Since China was established, the labor relationship ceased for 30 years has been appeared. However because the top priority aim of China's reform was economic growth, the protection of the rights and interests of labor was pushed back on the policy priority list. China takes foreign capitals based on cheap labor force quickly and China come up the worldwide plants. Since reformed, China keeps an economic growth rate of 9.7% annually for 30years. This economic growth is based on labor's sacrifice. However, Chinese fast economic growth causes side effects such as increasement of the gap between the wealthy and the poor, increasement of unbalanced development between regions, and the increasement of conflict between labor and management. Especially, according to changes in labors' level of consciousness, the labors recognized that their rights and interests are exploited by employers. Therefore, the labor dispute is continuously increasing. Chinese government changes their policy from the policy focusing on enterprise development to the policy protecting labor's rights and interests. In order to protect labor's rights and interests, China conducts labor contract law and labor dispute conciliation arbitration law in 2008. This kind of changes in Chinese labor environment affect a lot to Korean companies which already entered into China or are willing to enter. According to studying on present situation and resolution system in Chinese labor dispute, this paper suggests the proper countermeasure related to labor dispute of Korean companies which entered in China. First, the success rate of labor dispute conciliation by enterprise labor dispute conciliation committee is around 20% during recent several years and the success rate by year is in decline. Therefore, when labor dispute is occurred, our companies which entered into China better use other labor dispute methods such as negotiation and arbitration than conciliation in order to settle a conflict. Second, from the Korean enterprises entered in China point of view, there exists a problem not to sue except special cases which provided in the law even though they are dissatisfied with arbitrate judgment. Thus, when labor dispute occurred, Korean enterprises try to do best to settle the dispute through negotiation. However, in case of that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, they have to attend in the arbitration as if it is a last chance. Third, Korean enterprises keep in mind that dispute handling procedures between labor union and users or between labor group and users are different, and then deal with separately. Thus, dispute between labor and users have to follow arbitrate procedures as a necessary procedure, but in case of dispute related to group contract, namely dispute against labor union, labor dispute can be settled by arbitrate or suit, so after figuring out the situation exactly, it is necessary to select more advantageous way in order to settle the dispute. Moreover, in case of the dispute between labor union, they have to keep in mind that conciliation procedures cannot be used.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.14 no.9
• /
• pp.2078-2082
• /
• 2010

The general bus system architecture consists of masters, slaves, arbiter, decoder and so on in shared bus. As several masters can't use a bus concurrently, arbiter plays an role in bus arbitration. In compliance with the selection of arbitration method, The efficiency of bus usage can be determined. Fixed Priority, Round-Robin, TDMA, Lottery arbitration are studied in conventional arbitration method. Conventional arbitration method is considered bus priority primarily, actual bus utilization didn't considered. In this paper, we propose arbitration method using bus utilization operating block of each master, we verify the performance compared with the other arbitration methods through throughput performance. From the result of performance verification, we confirm that proposed arbitration method, matched bus utilization set by the user 40%, 20%, 20%, 20%.

• Journal of the Institute of Electronics Engineers of Korea SD
• /
• v.46 no.2
• /
• pp.38-44
• /
• 2009

Bus system consists of several masters, slaves, arbiter and decoder in a bus. Master means the processor that performs data command like CPU, DMA, DSP and slave means the memory that responds the data command like SRAM, SDRAM and register. Furthermore, as multiple masters can't use a bus concurrently, arbiter plays an role in bus arbitration. In compliance with the selection of arbitration method bus system performance can be charged definitely. Fixed priority and round-robin are used in general arbitration method and TDMA and Lottery bus methods are proposed currently as the improved arbitration schemes. In this stuff, we proposed the score arbitration method and composed TLM algorithm. Also we analyze the performance compared with general arbitration methods through simulation. In the future, bus arbitration policy will be developed with the basis of the score arbitration method and improve the performance of bus system.

• Journal of IKEEE
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.1203-1207
• /
• 2019

As the number of IP cores has been increasing in a System-on-Chip (SoC), multiple routers are included in on-chip-networks. Each router has its own arbitration policy and it is difficult to obtain a desired arbitration result by combining multiple routers. Allocating desired bandwidths to the ports across the routers is more difficult. In this paper, a guaranteed bandwidth allocation scheme using an IP-level QoS control is proposed to overcome the limitations of existing local arbitration policies. Each IP can control the priority of a packet depending on the data communication requirement within the allocated bandwidth. The experimental results show that the proposed mechanism guarantees for IPs to utilize the allocated bandwidth in multiple router on-chip-networks. The maximum error rate of bandwidth allocation of the proposed scheme is only 1.9%.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.99-106
• /
• 2017

In this paper, the first to identify in detail the direct and indirect causes of trade claims and to provide a way to prevent the causes and measures specific claims. Trade claims is not the best way to prevent in advance, measures to prevent future trade claims is as follows. First, it should be the credit investigation of the counterparts. Second, the contract must determine the rights and obligations of each other through sufficient consultation with contract and faithfully perform its contractual obligations. Third, the explicit trade arbitration clause of arbitration in the contract, and shall be a sufficient review of the procedure such as import and export, international business practices, norms and partners of economic policy, foreign exchange regulations, the trade system transactions. Finally, for it is to be treated as a one-stop strengthening the organization and function, and the Ministry of Commerce and Trade Association, and KOTRA and Trade Insurance Corporation strategic support systems, such as done by covering the work on trade claims prevention and resolution in the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.

• Journal of the Institute of Electronics Engineers of Korea SD
• /
• v.47 no.5
• /
• pp.80-86
• /
• 2010

The conventional bus system architecture consists of masters, slaves, arbiter, decoder and so on in shared bus. As several masters can't use a bus concurrently, arbiter plays an role in arbitrating the bus. The efficiency of bus usage can be determined by the selection of arbitration method. Fixed Priority, Round-Robin, TDMA and Lottery arbitration policies are studied in the conventional arbitration method where the bus priority is primarily considered. In this paper, we propose the arbitration method that calculates the bus utilization of each master. Furthermore, we verify the performance compared with the other arbitration methods through TLM(Transaction Level Model). From the results of performance verification, the arbitration methods of Fixed Priority and Round-Robin can not set the bus utilization and those of TDMA and Lottery happen the error of 50% and 70% respectively compared with bus utilization set by user in more than 100,000 cycles. On the other hand, the bandwidth-award bus arbitration method remains the error of less than 1% since approximately 1000 cycles, compared with bus utilization set by user.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.213-244
• /
• 2004

This article studied on international trade dispute of enforcement procedure of foreign arbitral awards at Korean Supreme Court, which is especially related to New York Convention article 5, The key points of most enforcement procedure were about public policy according New York Convention article 5, 2, b and New York Convention article 5, 1. Particularly, Judgement of public policy from Supreme Court represented that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award is to present and protect basic moral conviction and social order from spoiling, and not only domestic situation but also international stability of transaction should be taken into consideration in judging on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, which is construed under certain limitation. In this point, you should be understand the concept on refusal reasons in enforcing of foreign arbitral awards