• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.125-157
• /
• 2012

This study is to vindicate the vacation of arbitral awards in the United States. It focuses on the harmony of case law with statutory law of the United States. Until the early twentieth century, the American legal system, having adopted the English common law view, harbored a hostile attitude toward arbitration. The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of the United States, enacted in 1925, was to eliminate the hostile attitude of courts toward arbitration. Congress is to enforce arbitration agreements into which parties have entered and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. The structure of grounds for vacating arbitration awards has two layers. One is of vacating grounds with statutory origins, such as the FAA and the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the other, of vacating grounds originating from a nonstatutory, case law background. For a while, vacatur based on case law has coexisted with vacatur on statutory grounds for arbitration awards. After the Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., however, the justification of vacating based on case law has weakened. Post-Hall Street decisions of circuit courts show ways to deal with manifest disregard of the law. One of them is the harmonization of the case law grounds for vacating with the statutory grounds. It seems that the manifest-disregard-of-law and public-policy exceptions show a possibility of survival after Hall Street. However, other nonstatutory grounds for vacation of arbitration awards have no firm basis after Hall Street.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.119-169
• /
• 1993

In this article the present writers have surveyed recent cases on Warsaw Convention especially on the cases emerged in the years between 1986 to 1993. The cases before 1986 were discussed already in the book titled "Liability of International Air Carrier," written by Professor Choi, published in Seoul 1986. In this article the writers have reviewed most of the American cases and some cases from the courts of Germany, France and England. Main subjects which were discussed herein were as follows: Liability of air carriers in Warsaw Convention carriage 1. Exclusivity of the Warsaw Convention as a remedy 2. Warsaw Jurisdiction 3. The scope of the Warsaw Convention's definition of "Accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (1) Mental anguish (2) Unusual or unexpected events 4. Adequacy of notice of the limitation of liability to passengers for injuries and death 5. Damages recoverable, punitive damages and burden of proof 6. The wilful misconduct exception; definition of wilful misconduct 7. Cargo and passenger baggage 8. Time limitation of actions After examining articles published world-wide, this article compiles and analyses recent cases involving the Warsaw Convention system. As Warsaw System is based on international convention, maintaining uniformity in interpretation is of utmost importance. Therefore, this type of study is essential for resolving air-transportation disputes in Korea. This article examines the current state and recommends the desired course for the Warsaw Convention. The writers hope that this article is helpful to the Korean courts and those in the air-transportation industry in interpreting the Warsaw Convention.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.217-260
• /
• 2013

In connection to the civil liability of the medical malpractice, plaintiff and courts are solving the medical disputes with theory of the liability based on tort law. because contract law does not enact the right of claim of solatium and a plaintiff's lawyer and courts hesitate to use contract law. Medical treatment of doctor is main debt in medical contract and its in-complete performance gives rise to the violations of human's life, body and health. Consequently a breach of medical contract leads to violations of person-al rights. These violations spring from liability of contract as well as tort and damages from them are recognized based on medical contract law. A duty of explanation of doctor is a independent and appendant debt to the treatment debt. However its breach provokes violations of human's life, body and health as well as a right self-determination. Therefore consolation money claim should be recognized. In case of the violation of patient's life, body and health, patient's family al-so can demand consolation money due to the violation of their's own mental pain. However in case of the violation of only patient's self-determination without informed concent, they can not demand it by reason of the violation of patient's self-determination. But by reason of the violation of patient's life, body and health that were recognized by proximate causal relation between violation of duty of explanation and abd execution, they can do.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.221-241
• /
• 1998

Though the arbitration agreement is a means to resolve disputes autonomously in essence, the Principle of Parties Autonomy and the Principle of Free Contracting can not be applied infinitely without any limitations but subject to the Public Policy and the Compulsory Provisions as established by an interested country. Such principle of law is applied to international arbitration agreements as well, but their validity should be determined by different standards from those in domestic arbitration agreements, in consideration of their internationality. The essential effect of arbitration agreement is to exclude from the jurisdiction of State courts. Depending upon definition of the legal nature of arbitration agreement, the range and contents of the effect of such agreement will vary. Whether State courts can intervene in claims related to Compulsory Provisions is an issue at the level of legislation policy which can not be easily concluded. But, the applicability of Compulsory Provisions can not serve as an imperative ground to deny the eligibility of claims for arbitration, so far as such claims can be disposed of by the parties. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view the arbitration agreement as a substantive contract in its legal nature enabling the authority for dispute resolution to be delegated to arbitrator, so that the Principle of Parties Autonomy can be widely applied throughout the arbitration procedure as well as with other legal acts on private laws. With this, the parties can enjoy an arbitration award appropriate for characteristics of a specific arbitration agreement, thus resulting in facilitating the use of arbitration procedure for international trade activities. To conclude, the Public Policy and the Compulsory Provisions as limitations on arbitration agreement should be applied to such an extent that they can protect States basic moral faith and social order.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.161-181
• /
• 2014

This thesis, which mainly focuses on the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, will mainly deal with three characteristics and analyze the causes that directly or indirectly influence them. The first characteristic is China does not recognize ad hoc arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration is the initial form of arbitration, and it occupies an important position in many countries; however, China's judicial system does not recognize it. There are many disadvantages for building a system of ad hoc arbitration in China; i. e., the arbitration system in China is undeveloped and shot-time established, and it lacks social and civil society basis, along with a credit system, which the Western ad hoc arbitration relies on. The second characteristic is the existence of excessive judicial supervision and control over arbitration in China. Judicial supervision over arbitration has been the customary practice in each country of the modern world, but sharp variation exists in the legal stipulations and the courts' attitude toward the standard to be applied in the supervision over arbitration. In China, there has always been a controversy over judicial supervision, and the standards applied in the supervision over arbitration by courts in different regions are less than identical. The last characteristic is the existence of a combination of mediation with arbitration, which is called Arb-Med in China. Such means that in the process of arbitration, the arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case it is handling if both parties agree to do so. Under the Chinese law, Arb-Med may lead to a binding and enforceable outcome. However, it has several legal disadvantages and almost no country adopts this system. China still insists that this system will go on because Arb-Med was first made in China, and its effect was proven through long-time practice in CIETAC.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2000

The International Chamber of Commerce published the millennium edition of its standard trade definitions, Incoterms 2000. Incoterms are a basic reference for sales contracts, in constant daily use throughout the world. The new version will make it easier for traders to do business in the new century, despite the growing volume and complexity of international transactions. Since Incoterms were first published in 1936, they have been updated six times. They precisely define the responsibilities of buyer and seller and are recognized as the international standard by customs authorities and courts in all the main trading nations. It is important for traders to incorporate the correct Incoterms into their international contracts to avoid unnecessary legal problems. Courts may otherwise interpret trade terms according to often widely divergent national laws and unless the use of Incoterms is specified, expensive legal disputes can arise. Division of costs is a most important element in every contract of sale. The parties must know not only who does what but also how costs resulting therefrom should be divided between them. In most cases the fact that a party must do something means that he must also bear the resulting costs, unless otherwise agreed. But there are many exceptions to this principle and uncertainties arise, particularly with respect to services performed by other parties. Also, difficulties arise with respect to the division of costs whenever additional costs are caused by unexpected events, such as hindrances causing a ship to deviate or to remain in a seaport longer than expected. The main principle of the division of costs is clear enough: the seller has to pay costs necessary for the goods to reach the agreed point of delivery, and the buyer has to pay any further costs after that point. But as noted, it is not always easy to implement this principle in practice, since the detailed distribution of functions under the various trade terms is not and cannot be fully defined in Incoterms. Instead, failing precise stipulations in the contract of sale, guidance must be sought from other criteria such as commercial practices used earlier by the same parties or the custom of trade.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.113-132
• /
• 2014

Judicial decisions make it clear that in all CIF, CFR and FOB contracts, incorporation of charter party into sale contracts is the only effective way for recovery of demurrage in the context of sale contracts. The case law would appear to clarify a number of important issues: The words of incorporation in the sale contract play a vital role in determining the extent of the influence of the charter party principles over the sale contract. Hence, unless it is expressly provided otherwise, the courts tend to apply the charter party principles to the incorporated charter party provisions to the extent that they make sense in the context of sale contract, and that they do not undermine the underlying foundations of international trade law. In this respect the courts also take into account the factual background of the case with a view to objectively ascertaining the intention of the parties. The law is, however, less clear on the effects of the incorporated charter party provisions in sale contracts. There is still no straightforward answer to the question of to what extent the charter party law is applied to the incorporated charter party provisions in the context of sale contracts. The case law on this matter merely provides piecemeal solutions, and it is not possible to extract a general rule which will help interpretation of those charter party provisions which have not yet been subject to litigation or arbitration. Therefore, it should be noted that the parties would prepare Incorporation Clause in their sale contracts in reliance of the rules to achieve the desired results.