• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.47-72
• /
• 2004

The Drafting of Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea is to be the basis of and important to the South-North Commercial Arbitration Committee. Therefore we should study and review carefully the drafting of Commercial Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea. First of all, it's probable that the drafting of Commercial Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee in South Korea should be written by the Commercial Arbitration Committee of South Korea and Korean arbitral body after these organizations are established and appointed. Second, it's probable that the Commercial Arbitration Committee of South Korea and the arbitral body in South Korea should be composed of private sector, not government officer mainly. Third, it's not recommendable that we make the ICSID intervene in appointment of arbitrator(s) of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea when it's not agreed with between the South Korea and the North Korea. Forth, it's not recommendable that we, the South Korea write the only one South Korean draft of the Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2005

To realize the spirit of South-North Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000, the authorities concerned of South and North Korea have reached agreements to settle commercial disputes as well as to set up a South-North arbitration rule which is becoming a problem of vital importance between South and North Korea. The purpose of this paper is to analyzed and review carefully the drafting of Commercial Arbitration Rule of the commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea so The South-North Korea Commercial Rule is an institutional organization for resolution of commercial disputes arising form trade and investment between south and north Korea. Under the situation, it is becoming a problem of vital importance how to manage and control the Arbitration Rule for prompt and effective resolution of South-North Korea of commercial disputes It is probable that the drafting of Commercial Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee in South Korea should be written by the Commercial Arbitration Committee of South Korean arbitral body after these organizations are established and appointed. it's not recommendable that we the South-North Korea write the only enc South Korean draft of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-Nonh Korea. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) should be designated as the arbitration institution of South Korea because the KCAB is the only authorized institution in South Korea, statutorily empowered to settle any kind of commercial disputes at home and abroad.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.159-176
• /
• 2012

The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) recently revised its International Arbitration Rules in a way that reflects its efforts to advance its procedures, leading directly to improved competitiveness as an arbitration institute. Apart from certain limitations, the KCAB's international arbitration rule revision introduced several new arbitration mechanisms, including fast-track arbitration and an empowered administrative office. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) released a revised set of arbitration rules (ICC Arbitration Rules), which have been said to be probably the most consulted-on arbitration rules ever. Even though the changes codify existing ICC court practice and add to the 1998 rules only provisions felt necessary in light of input from the users of arbitration, some of the changes will have huge implications for future aspects of arbitration mechanisms, especially those of KCAB. Although it remains to be seen what impact the ICC Arbitration Rules will have in practice, the new rules have been well received by the arbitration community and represent a modern set of provisions consistent with the current needs of the users of international arbitration. That is why, here in the Korean arbitration environment, further research is needed on the possibilities of introducing several elements of the revised ICC Arbitration Rules to improve the speed and cost efficiency of international arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.147-178
• /
• 2005

Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain dispute which have arisen or which may arise between them. Arbitration agreement is an important factor to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement and it should be the object of examination before anything else to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement. Recently the Supreme Court seemed to make negative position about validity of selective arbitration agreement. However theoretically and scientifically selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Examine selective arbitration agreement throughly according to the autonomy of the parties rules, wide jurisdiction rules of interpretation, principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, and moses cone presumption rule of interpretation, selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Also analyze precedents in accordance with validity of selective from all angles which are voluntary agreement of the parties, agreement in writing, principle of private autonomy, comparative study of domestic and foreign precedents and mutual relation of arbitration and trial, selective arbitration agreement based on principle of private by the parties is considered a valid arbitration agreement. Courts should actively accept selective arbitration agreement as a valid arbitration agreement to make foreign companies prefer arbitration in Korea and in oder for arbitration to be widely used in disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.63-82
• /
• 2016

In order to cope with the changes of International Commercial Arbitration, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) regulated an Emergency Arbitrator for the first time, implementing the arbitration rules in China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone on May 1, 2014. Moreover, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) also regulated the Emergency Arbitrator in the revised arbitration rules on January 1, 2015. However, it caused considerable contradiction that SHIAC and CIETAC admitted an interim measure decision by the Emergency Arbitrator under the circumstance that the Chinese court can impose a preservative measure in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Arbiration Act. This study attempted to compare the main contents of an Emergency Arbitrator regulated in the arbitration rules of SHIAC and CIETAC with arbitration rules of representative arbitral institutions which operate an Emergency Arbitrator. In addition, this study verified the application features and problems through comparing the rule of SHIAC and CIETAC with the rule related to the preservative measure in Chinese law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2019

In investigating how set-off defenses matter in arbitration, one should take into account that it is not permitted against the parties' will for arbitrators to rule on the disputes that are not the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties involved, because it is considered that the parties intend to solve only the disputes which are the subject of the agreement by arbitration. Also, one should keep in mind that the parties must settle the disputes that are the subject of an arbitration agreement by arbitration when they conclude the agreement, and it is not allowed against the parties' will to resolve the disputes in other ways. The parties may agree whether the respondent can request for arbitration on the counterclaim, which is his/her claim against the claimant, and whether the respondent can raise a plea for a set-off that his/her claim against the claimant is a counter obligation. Failing on such agreement, the respondent may submit a counterclaim when his/her claim and the claimant's claim are the subject of the same arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal may rule on the counter obligation when the arbitration agreement, which becomes the basis for the claimant' claim, has an effect on the counter obligation. Where the claimant fails to raise an objection even after he/she becomes aware that the respondent has requested for arbitration or has raised a plea for set-off by providing his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement as a counterclaim or a counter obligation, the arbitral tribunal may rule on the respondent's claim against the claimant. On these occasions, the arbitral tribunal has to guarantee the parties an opportunity to defend themselves by pointing out those situations. It will meet the purposes of arbitration systems to rule out the jurisdiction of the courts when the plaintiff alleges the existence of the arbitration agreement, in case the respondent raises a plea for set-off based on his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement in the litigation procedures. However, where the plaintiff fails to allege the existence and conducts pleading in the court with regard to the counter obligation, the court must not reject the respondent's set-off defense because of the existence of the agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.145-179
• /
• 2001

The Federal Maritime Commission is issuing new regulations implementing the Administrative dispute Resolution Act. The new regulations expand the Commission's Alternative dispute resolution(“ADR”) services, addressing guidelines and procedures for arbitration and providing for mediation and other ADR services. This rule replaces current subpart U-(Conciliation Service), with a new subpart U-(Alternative Dispute Resolution), that contains a new Commission ADR policy and provisions for various means of ADR. The rule also revises certain other regulations to conform to the Commission's new ADR policy. So, this paper object was to study on the FMC's ADR in U.S. with the emphasis on the final rule analysis.