• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.133-159
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews 2019 new arbitration rules of Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). JCAA has amended its Commercial Arbitration Rules, and its Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration. Also, it has introduced a new Interactive Arbitrations Rules. These new rules take effect from 1 January 2019. First, principal amendments of JCAA Commercial Arbitration Rules are such as arbitrator impartiality, tribunal secretaries, no dissenting opinions, expedited proceedings, arbitrator fees, administrative fees. Second, JCAA's new Interactive Arbitration Rules compel communication from the arbitral tribunal to the Parties and introduce a system of fixed compensation for arbitrators. Third, JCAA's Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration are designed to provide the minimum essentials to allow the UNCITRAL Rules to be overseen by an institution. The only significant updates focus on arbitrator remuneration. This paper presents the intent and some implications of JACC's 2019 new rules for Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) arbitration rules. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and improvement on the facilitating of arbitration system in Korea.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.73-80
• /
• 2005

We propose a Quantum Authentication and Key distribution protocol based on one-time n using one-way Hash function. The designated users can authenticate each other and the arbitrator using their one-time ID and distribute a quantum secret key using remained GHZ states after authentication procedure. Though the help of the arbitrator is needed in the process of authentication and key distribution, our protocol prevents the arbitrator from finding out the shared secret key even if the arbitrator becomes an active attacker. Unconditional security can be proved in our protocol as the other QKD protocols.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.117-138
• /
• 2008

This study lies on building the International Standardization of China Arbitration System for improving a relationship of mutual trust and the safety trade between China and other worldwide countries, especially, South Korea as their one of the biggest trading partners through the comparative analysis of China and UNCITRAL Arbitration Law. In this analysis, the differences from China and UNCITRAL in arbitration law are like belows ; lack of arbitrator's international mind, the limitation of private property right, prohibition of Ad. hoc arbitration, arbitrator's biased nationalism, localism, and their short specialties. a deficiency of the objectiveness for arbitrator's election, a judgement rejection of claimants by using nonattendance and walkout, impossibility of prior and temporary property custody for execution of arbitration award. etc. For the improvement of the International Standardization of China Arbitration, this paper propose as follows: 1) Extension of private property right, reorganization of tax system, realization of open competition, exclusion of 'Sinocentrism', globalization of arbitration system 2) The abolition of old fashioned bureaucracy with approval for ad.hoc arbitration 3) An education for arbitrator's internationalization, specialty, and to promote legal knowledge 4) A settlement of the third country arbitrators' selection for reflecting interested party's decision by the court in a selection system of arbitration committee. 5) Institutionalization of arbitration judgment that prevent for claimant's avoidance by using a withdrawal and an intentional absent 6) A permission of the right of claimant's court custody directly before the begging of arbitration request for the prevention for destruction of evidence and property concealment 7) Grant of the arbitration tribunal's interim measures of protection for private property preservation to the third party, proof security, prevention from the loss that selling the corruptible goods 8) Improvement of arbitration's efficiency from the exclusion of the obstacles that are forgery, concealed evidence, and arbitrator's bribe taking Lastly, I hope that this study will serve to promote friendly economic relationship between China and South Korea and strive for international equilibrium through the achievement of China Arbitration's International Standardization. I will finish this paper with a firm belief that this will lead to more advanced studies.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.207-227
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. The parties are free to agree on the number of arbitrators. The role of the arbitrator is so significant in the arbitration system that its success or failure may depend on the credibility of the arbitrator. The purpose of this paper is to examine the specific elements of the Arbitration Clause through arbitration laws, arbitration rules and the related cases, to introduce the standard clause which are recommended by the international institution and the individual countries, and to make the parties of international commercial contracts reflect them in their contracts. Thus this author would like to recommend the famous and well known the Standard Clause which were drafted by international institution such as ICC and UNCITRAL or individual countries.(LCIA, AAA, CIETAC, KCAB)

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.149-173
• /
• 2016

This study vindicates similarities and differences of hybrid process of arbitration and mediation between China and Malaysia. Both countries develop hybrid processes combining arbitration with mediation in their own cultural soils. The Chinese dispute resolver plays the dual role of arbitrator and mediator during the proceedings of hybrid process of arbitration and mediation. On the other hand, a different arbitrator plays the role of mediator, if conciliation fails in Malaysia. On the other hand, judges are allowed to act as mediator during the proceeding in China and Malaysia.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the Supreme Court decision of the United Kingdom in Jivraj v. Hashwani (2011) concerning the employment issue of arbitrators, falling within the exception of genuine occupational requirement under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, and nationality of arbitrators. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in Jivraj v. Hashwani, unanimously overturning decision of the English Court of Appeal. The facts of this case and the decision of the Court of Appeal have been widely discussed. The decision of the Supreme Court has been met with approval within the international arbitration community in London, having restored the legal position to that prior to the Court of Appeal's ruling. Thus, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal's finding that arbitrators are the employees of the arbitrating parties. Arbitrators were held to be genuinely self-employed, and therefore outside the scope of the Regulations or Equality Act(2010). As such, the anti-discrimination provisions are not applicable to the selection, engagement or appointment of arbitrators. Most importantly, the Supreme Court's finding that arbitrators are not employees removes the possibility of challenges to arbitration agreements on the grounds that they are in breach of the Equality Act. As a practical matter, parties no longer need to consider carving out nationality provisions when drafting arbitration agreements.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.33-54
• /
• 2008

The KCAB enacted their new international arbitration rules(the KCAB rules) in 2007 wheres The CIETAC revised their arbitration rules(the CIETAC new rules) in 2005. This article investigates some practical problems on both rules respectively and helps trading companies to proceed arbitration by these rules. This study finds some problems as follows. There are the following problems in KCAB rules. First, application fee is too expensive fee. So KCAB should cut down their application fee. Second, if there is no agreement on number of arbitrators, the arbitration is processed by sole arbitrator. But it is very difficult for sole arbitrator to process international arbitration due to characteristics of international arbitration such as complexity of case and a large sum of claim. Third, a period of selection of arbitrator is long. In view of developing of communication means, this period is needed more short. In the meantimes, there are the following problems in CIETAC rules. First, though the CIETAC new rules enlarges the right of parties autonomy such as selection of arbitration rules or revise of it, China arbitration Act stipulates a institute arbitration which restrict partie's autonomy. Second, if there is no agreement on arbitrators, the CIETAC appoints chair of tribural in three arbitrators ion or sole arbitrators. is processed by sole arbitrator. Third, a draft of arbitral award is checked by the CIETAC in advance. Especially, the two latter problems is possible for foreigners to have doubts of fairness of CIETAC arbitration. Becuase the CIETAC is not a complete independent private institution. Consequently, I suggest that Korean trading companies should examine problems of these two arbitration rules carefully, and select a most appropriate rules for settlement of their disputes with Chines companies.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to take a countermeasure of the investment treaty arbitration that Lone Star claimed to the Korean government. In particular, this study suggests procedural measures to be prepared by the Korean government after the arbitration award. The actual remedy in ICSID arbitration is the annulment procedure of arbitration award. Therefore, this study analyzed the measures that the Korean government can prepare based on the annulment grounds: the inadequacy of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the excessive power of the arbitrator, the corruption of the arbitrator, and the serious violation of the rules. First, the Korean government should decide whether to proceed with the annulment procedure after the arbitration award. Second, if they decide to do it, they should review the grounds of annulment. For example, it is possible to analyze whether the relationship between the arbitrator and Lone Star can be properly in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, whether Lone Star is eligible to apply for ICSID arbitration, or whether arbitration tribunal ignores the crucial evidence that can affect the arbitration award. Independently, the Korean government needs to discuss the investment arbitration appeal system in a long-term perspective.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2020

The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid is becoming more popular since it makes an amicable relationship and thorough statement possible. The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid has been used to take advantage of both dispute resolution methods. In a Med-Arb process, negotiating a resolution to disputes is attempted with a mediator's help. If the mediation ends in an impasse or issues remain unresolved, parties can move on to arbitration. Med-Arb can also be cost-effective when disputants hire one person to serve as mediator and arbitrator (Med-Arb-Pure). However, it can disturb the fairness and neutrality of arbitrators, and awards can be annulled. Indeed, "Award by Consent" is different from the "Med-Arb-Pure" process. Arbitrators easily confuse them. Only the parties settle on the arbitral proceedings' course, and the arbitrator can help them (award by consent). The role and skill of a mediator are different from an arbitrator's. Disputants have the right to use a mediator who specializes in mediation. Moreover, mediation communication confidentiality is the essential value of mediation, and this should be protected. Therefore, in the process of "Med-Arb," separation between mediating and arbitrating is a better choice to specialize in each expertise. In this process, "Med-Arb" can be an affordable, expeditious, proper, and effective method of resolving international commercial disputes and continuing ADR prime time.