• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.25-45
• /
• 2018

International commercial arbitration is an inseparable part of today's international commerce. International transactions are becoming increasingly complex. Problems brought by multi-party and multi-contract arbitration pose problems for traditional arbitration systems. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) has released updated International Arbitration Rules(2016 Rules) and has adopted innovations similar to those introduced in the rules of major international arbitration institutions in recent years. The changes in the 2016 Rules are intended to increase the efficiency of the arbitral process, and introduce the process for consolidation of claims. For international commerce contracts, it would be appropriate, and necessary, to adopt a multi-party arbitration clause, as consolidated arbitration provides effective resolutions for multi-party disputes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.99-128
• /
• 2014

Last year, Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center(SIDRC) was set up to facilitate and promote international arbitration in Korea. This study was focused on the revision of arbitration rules such as ICC, SIAC, HKIAC and JCAA. As a leading arbitration institution in the world, ICC has tried continuously to provide more efficient service to their client by adopting emergency arbitrator(EA) & multi party arbitration. Other three institutions also introduced almost same mechanism to compete each other. These two new system is very innovative in international arbitration. First of all, EA was designed to provide interim measure service to preserve or protect parties' right before the constitution of arbitral tribunal. Arbitration institutions and arbitral tribunals should be careful to decide these requests are legitimate or not because too hasty approval on joinder or consolidation without full consideration such as parties' intention or argument may issue another serious problem - setting aside an award rendered after joined or consolidated.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2022

The modern arbitration practice recognises the need for a faster and simplified procedural framework for international disputes with fairly low amounts at stake. This has driven several institutions to expand their offer of procedural guidelines with a simplified set of rules that would fit this purpose. Expedited arbitration is increasingly used by parties and is growing in popularity. The basic idea behind establishing expedited arbitration rules is to create the possibility for the parties to a dispute to agree on a simplified and streamlined procedure and to have an arbitration award issued within a short period. The associated cost savings for the parties is another benefit. The importance of developing rules for expedited dispute resolution has recently also been considered by the UNCITRAL Working Group II, in light of the "increasing demand to resolve simple, low-value cases by arbitration" and "the lack of international mechanisms cope with such disputes." As a result, the UNCITRAL 2021 Expedited Arbitration Rules (UNCITRAL EAR) took effect on September 19, 2021. The EAR was adopted by the Commission on 21 July 2021 and, next to UNCITRAL's well-known instruments like the Arbitration Rules (UAR) and the Model Law, represent another chapter in the Commission's impactful work in the field of international arbitration. Overall, the UNCITRAL EAR has great potential to meet the need for more flexible and efficient arbitration proceedings, primarily because they provide the tribunal with strong managerial powers while still leaving room for consultation with the parties. However, parties must remember that not all disputes may be suitable for expedited arbitration, and disputes that are complex or have the possibility of being joint or consolidated may not benefit from simplified procedures and tight deadlines. This article will outline the core features and characteristics of the UNCITRAL EAR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.23-38
• /
• 2019

This article aims to explore ways to prevent disputes arising from 'Origin Procedure' under FTAs through 'advance ruling system'. To achieve the aims of this article, this paper examines advance ruling systems operated by Korea and the United States to implement the Korea-US FTA, and analyzes whether the systems are realizing the original purpose of preventing disputes in terms of legal certainty and accessibility. The results show that the advance ruling system for origin in Korea has the same high level of laws and institutions as that of the United States. However, it is necessary to further provide institutional support for staffs that operate the system, so that expertise knowledge can be consolidated and accumulated. Also the accessibility of the system requires improvements.

• Journal of Oriental Neuropsychiatry
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.39-53
• /
• 2021

Objectives: To analyze the reports of qualitative research about natural disasters in Korea. Methods: Nine published qualitative research studies were selected for the analysis. The selected reports were analyzed by Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), a reporting guideline for qualitative research. In addition, each subject of the study was qualitatively synthesized. Results: In the quality assessment using COREQ, detailed information about the researchers were insufficient. The results of the studies were integrated into six themes: "Disaster experience", "Disaster damage", "Dealing with disasters", "Disaster compensation issues", "Arbitration Resources", and "Post-disaster change". Conclusions: In further qualitative research on natural disasters, it is necessary to report the research according to the COREQ checklist. Based on the results of this study, continuous attention and research are needed to explore the areas of Korean medicine care in the event of a disaster.