• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 1997

Under Chinese law system, the maritime law is a special branch of the civil law. For this reason, the maritime litigation shall be governed correspondently by the civil prodecure law. However, since the maritime litigation has its own special prodecure which is different from that of general procedure, there must be some special regulations to be a supplement to the civil procedure law. In this paper, a study is made on such regulations which are "The Regulations Relating to the arrest of Ships Before Litigation" and "The Regulations Concerning the Auction of Ships Which Have Been Arrested by Maritime Court for Clearing off the Debts" The aim of this paper is to describe the basic principles established in the regulations mentioned above in order to make the people who are unfamiliar with Chinese maritime legislation to be understood about Chinese special procedure adopted in maritime litigation.maritime litigation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2015

There are three categories of arbitration - domestic arbitration, foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitration. Although the meaning of foreign arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration is different, they are used to mean the same in practice. In fact, there is significant controversy about the meaning of non-domestic arbitration because it is too difficult to distinguish between non-domestic arbitration and domestic arbitration. In the Chinese arbitration system, there are two main laws,Chinese Arbitration Law and Chinese Civil Procedure Law. Chinese Arbitration Law regulates the internal matters, while Chinese Civil Procedure Law regulates the external legal regulations. After the 2012 revised Chinese Civil Procedure Law, a number of laws and regulations have been revised, and almost every Arbitrations Rules have been revised, and will be in effect in 2015. Depending on the nationality of arbitration, the applicable laws will be different. The nationality of arbitration is so important that this paper will pay more attention to it. Although the case in China has no precedent effect, it is so important to the parties that this paper will address it. This paper will analyze the process and the cases of the recognition and enforcement of the award system in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 중재판정부의 임시적 처분에 대하여 중국 정부가 어떤 기준에 근거하여 판단하고 있는지 관련 사례분석을 통해 규명하고자 하였다. 먼저 대부분의 국가에서 중재판정부 에 의한 임시적 처분을 인정하고 있는 반면, 중국은 여전히 법원 고유의 권한으로 인정하고 있다. 이는 국제적 추세와 불일치하는 판단이기도 하다. 특히 주요법률 규정인 중재법과 민사소송법이 2017년에 개정되었음에도 임시적 처분에 대한 규정은 변화가 없고 여전히 중재규칙간의 불일치로 인한 문제가 남아 있다. 따라서 중재절차상 임시적 처분이 어떻게 적용하고 집행하는지 중국의 입장과 태도에 대해서 주의를 기울일 필요가 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2016

In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.99-143
• /
• 2016

General aviation and air transport are two wings of the civil aviation industry. Chinese air transport is developing rapidly, and has become the world second air transport system only second to US since 2005. However, Chinese civil aviation is far behind the world average level, and cannot meet requirements of economic construction and social development. The transition and structural adjustment of Chinese economy provide the general aviation with a unprecedented broad market. The prospect of general aviation is promising and anticipated. The development of general aviation industry needs the legislative supports, and the current legislative conditions of Chinese general aviation are undoubtedly far behind the realistic requirements. Accelerating the legislation in Chinese general aviation industry requires scientific legislation concept. First, Legislation must promote development of general aviation industry. The general aviation will serves as a Chinese emerging industry that boosts domestic demand, promotes employment and expedite domestic economic development. We should, based on both the concept of promoting the industrial development of general aviation and national industrial planning, enact and rectify relative laws and regulations. And we should also straighten out the relationship between aviation security and industrial development and promote the revolution of low-altitude airspace management in an all-round way, in order to improve the utilization rate of airspace resources, classify and establish airspace, simplify examination and approval procedure and intensify operation management. In addition, what we should do is to expedite the infrastructure layout construction, guide the differentiated but coordinated development of general aviation industries in various areas, establish a united supervision mechanism of general aviation, redistrict the responsibilities of Chinese Air Control Agency and set up legislation, law enforcement and judicial systems with clarified institutions, clear positioning and classified responsibilities, so as to usher in a new era of the legislative management of Chinese general aviation industry. Second, shift the focus from regulations to both regulations and services. Considering the particularity of the general aviation, we should use American practices for reference and take into account both regulation and service functions when enacting general aviation laws. For example, we should reduce administrative licensing and market supervision, and adopt "criteria" and "approval" management systems for non-commercial and commercial aviation. Furthermore, pay attention to social benefits. Complete social rescuing mechanism through legislation. It should be clarified in legislation that general aviation operators should take the responsibilities of, and ensure to realize social benefits of environmental protection and ecological balance .Finally, rise in line with international standards. Modify Chinese regulations which is inconsistent with international ones to remove barriers to international cooperation. Specify basic legislative principles. One is the principle of coordination. Realize coordination between the civil aviation and general aviation, between military aviation and civil aviation, and among departments. Two is the principle of pertinence. The general aviation has its own rules and specialties, needing to be standardized using specialized laws and regulations. Three is the principle of efficiency. To realize time and space values of general aviation, we should complete rules in aerospace openness, general aviation airport construction, general aviation operations, and regulation enforcement. Four is the principle of security. Balance the maximum use of resources of Chinese airspace and the according potential threats to Chinese national interests and social security, and establish a complete insurance system which functions as security defense and indemnificatory measure. Establish a unified legal system. Currently, the system of Chinese general aviation laws consists of national legislation, administrative laws and regulations and civil aviation regulations (CAR). Some problems exist in three components of the system, including too general content, unclear guarantee measures, incomplete implementation details, and lacking corresponding pertinence and flexibility required by general aviation regulations, stringency of operation management and standards, and uniformity of standards. A law and regulation system, centered on laws and consisting of administrative laws regulations, industrial regulations, implementation details, industrial policies and local laws and regulations, should be established. It is suggested to modify the Civil Aviation Law to make general aviation laws complete, enact the Regulations of General Aviation Development, and accelerate the establishment, modification and abolition of Chinese general aviation laws to intensify the coordination and uniformity of regulations.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제29권
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2006

This writing is for the purpose of investigating the specific character and problem point of China arbitration system which has near 90 years history and overviewing the drift of system improvement which happens recently. The arbitration system of China which traditionally does not acknowledge ad hoc arbitration, unlike most of the other nations that employ The UNCITRAL model law and make it their own legislation, is restrictive to the parties concerned principle of private autonomy considerably. Also the independence of arbitration is delicate, because of a civil characteristic weakness of the arbitral institutions and the intervention of the courts on the arbitration procedure and award. The dual system of domestic and international arbitration which maintains after enforcement of 1994 arbitration law is often to be a primary factor interrupting the development of Chinese arbitration system and making it vulnerable to challenges. The system improvement demand of the recent time reflects this point and makes the arbitration system of China to a international standard rather than now, so it is a desirable direction for China to be as the member of the world economy to be globalization.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.