• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.89-122
• /
• 2002

Mediation is defined most simply as facilitated negotiation. An impartial third party(the mediator) facilitates negotiations between disputants or the disputants' representatives in their search for a resolution of their dispute. The disputants remain responsible for negotiating a settlement; the mediator's role is to assist the process in ways acceptable to the disputants. Sometimes this means merely providing a forum for negotiations or convening the negotiations. More often it menas helping the disputants find areas of common ground for resolution, offering alternatives, supervising the bargaining, then drafting the final settlement. mediation can occur between two disputants seeking to resolve one issue, or among many disputants seeking to resolve several issues. The disputants can participate in mediation themselves or they can have representatives negotiate for them. Mediation most often is a voluntary process. In Korea, as mediation could not have developed for lack of people's correct understanding on it, there must be enlightenment against the people, and it needs subsidiary from government and support from lawers. In order for the lawers to accomplish their role in progressing mediation procedure favorably, they should study and develope on the skill on mediate the case. Furthermore through the good mediation system, it also needs to induce the parties to participate in mediation procedure voluntarily. On the other hand, It also needs to bring up and develope the ADR institution to proceed the mediation impartially and effectively, and let them improve the mediation systems, like the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.613-630
• /
• 2004

Conciliation is one of the most effective ADR(alternative dispute resolution) which takes the place of civil procedure. It is achieved with disputants' independent will. The disputants negotiate each other, and make peaceful settlement. If a compromise is effected between the two, it regards the compromise as a judgement of the Supreme Court. This effect on the conciliation is afford a basis for the private autonomies. But nowadays, the practical use of the private autonomies is not thoroughgoing enough in our country. It is a matter of no uncommon occurrence for the member of a conciliation commission to form a conclusion about the dispute and to persuade the disputants to accept the conclusion. Even the judges have a tendency to conduct a conciliation like civil procedure. Under these circumstances, it's harsh to the disputants that a compromise in the conciliation has an effect like the judgement of the Supreme Court. So you should reconsider carefully the role or service of a conciliation commission. The role of a conciliation commission must be to guarantee an atmosphere of freedom, and for disputants to negotiate without restraint. So the members of a conciliation commission should make an offer the disputants the information on the members and proceedings of the conciliation. It will make the disputants have a firm belief that the members are fair and conciliation will be progressed in a fair. Moreover they have to notify the disputants of the estimated norms which is concerned in the dispute, too. It will facilitate the negotiation and compromise, and will justify claim preclusion(res judicata) which is based on Korean Civil Conciliation Law(Article 29) says that conciliation has the full force and effect of a civil judgement of the Supreme Court.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.1-14
• /
• 1994

This study attempted to characterize conflict frames of environmental disputes by examining twelve actual wetland permitting cases in Ohio. The participants consisted of such interested parties as applicants, technical, legal or environmental consultants to applicants, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Natural Resoures, local agencies, the environmental community, and citizens who have been involved of the permitting process. The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence of how different perceptual frames existed in the wetland conversion disputes, and to understand different environmental conflict frames that influenced disputants' perception relating to dispute resolution. The vehicles used to collect the necessary data were three survey instruments : Open-ended questionnaires, Likert-type questionnaires, and ranking questionnaires. Forty-three subjects were contacted for open fact-to-fact interviews, 53 subject for Kikert-type mail survey and 54 subjects for ranking instrument mail survey. Analyses of survey results revealed that six different types of frames were clearly identified from all the parties involved in Ohio wetland conversion disputes. It revealed that disputants had statistically significantly different levels of perception to the frames based on the participants' role (i.e. regulator, applicant, commentor), the number of involved parties in the process, processing time and the issuance of a permit. The findings also revealed that information sharing among disputants played a significant role in the process of froming and reframing. The alternative idea, building cooperation through negotiation, was proposed to provide new insight into the resolution of the dispute.

• Journal of Wetlands Research
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.77-87
• /
• 2008

This study attempted to characterize and compare wetland conflicts in Korea and United States, which caused serious social and environmental effects. First of all, such 3 different survey methods as open-ended questionnaires, Likert-type and ranking questionnaires were adopted for 5 selected study sites in Korea and 12 cases in the U.S. in order to understand and measure these effects. 53 subjects were contacted for open face-to-face interviews in the U.S. and 258 in Korea and overall 567 disputants were for other questionnaires. Analyses of survey results revealed that disputants involved in the wetland conflicts had developed different concept of conflict frames. The study also identified the reframing is the key for conflict resolution Based on these results, a idea of public mediator was suggested to resolve and mediate conflicts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.21-39
• /
• 2010

The role of the arbitrator is so significant in the international arbitration that its success or failure may depend on the credibility of the arbitrator. It has long been understood that the ideal arbitrators are should be independent, unbiased, and have the requisite legal and/or technical expertise and experience for the case at hand. Arbitrators may be selected either by agreement of the parties, by appointment by arbitral institution or by a national court. This article outlines the main method of selecting the members of the tribunal plus some of the benefits and burdens of each method. One of the most common methods of appointing arbitrators is by agreement of the parties. This approach is very attractive because it allows parties to submit a their dispute to judges of their own choice, that they also agree on. Most arbitral institutions have a panel of arbitrators and their arbitral rules. So, if disputants agree on a specific arbitral institution, they can settle their disputes by arbitration easily and quickly. If disputants are unable to agree on arbitrator(s) or a specific arbitral institution, method of selecting arbitrator(s) by national court must be employed.

• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.44
• /
• pp.103-141
• /
• 2018

As the South China Sea maritime dispute illustrates, when considering the place where maritime claims occur, states do not have many choices to respond to maritime claims in which disputed areas are located far away from the land and are surrounded by the sea. As Mearsheimer (2014) points out, the sea stops power projection. Therefore, in order to adopt coercive as well as peaceful settlement policies to deal with maritime claims, states need to overcome obstacles (the sea) to project power. It means that if states want to conduct a specific foreign policy action, such as negotiating maritime borderlines or arguing sovereignty on islands, they need a tool (naval power) to coerce or to persuade the opponent. However, there are lack of research that studies maritime claims from the perspective of naval power. This research project fills this gap based on naval power. How do relative levels of naval power and (dis) parities of naval power influence the occurrence of MIDs over maritime claims? Naval power is a constitutive element during maritime claims. If disputants over maritime claims have required naval power to project their capability, it means that they have the capability to apply various ways, such as aggressive options including MIDs, to accomplish their goals. So, I argue that when two claimants have enough naval power to project their capabilities, the likelihood of MIDs over maritime claims increases. Given that one or both states have a certain level of naval power, how does relative naval power between two claimants influence the management of maritime claims? Based on the power transition theory, I argue that when the disparities of relative naval power between claimants becomes distinctive, militarized conflicts surrounding maritime territory are less probable. Based on the ICOW project which codes maritime claims from 1900 to 2001, the empirical results of the Poisson models show if both claimants have projectable naval power, the occurrence of MIDs over maritime claims increases. In addition, the result shows that when disputants maintain similar relative naval powers, they are more likely to initiate MIDs over maritime claims. To put it differently, if naval capabilities' gap between two claimants becomes larger, the probability of the occurrence of MIDs decreases.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.335-343
• /
• 2003

Currently serious conflicts of interests are arisen for the use of coastal area in Korea. However, there no mediation program, mediators' consistent policies and reasonable laws to resolve conflict of interests which may be arisen when developing coastal area. The objective of this study is to lay the evaluation criteria for the formalized objective evaluation among disputants of coastal conflicts for the better understanding and characterizing of coastal conflicts in Korea. In order to do so, this study has adopted for the extraction of the evaluation factors to describe the present conditions of conflicts in the selected study area(Sihwa lake), to analyze the problems, and then to explore alternative approaches for resolving the conflicts. As research methodologies, we have depended upon literature review and field survey methods. As field survey methods, we employed structured questionnaires for the various samples from the experts of research institutes, professors, representatives of NGOs and citizens. Survey results suggested that 5 representative elements comprising 35 detailed elements could be identified. Based on these results, this study was able to identify and classify the evaluation factors and help to resolve coastal conflicts in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2014

Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly new ADR process dating back to the 1970s. Med-Arb capitalizes on the advantages of both mediation and arbitration, while eliminating many of their disadvantages. Mediation has the advantage of allowing for resolutions rather than decisions. Arbitration has the advantage of guaranteeing that the matter will be resolved when the procedure is over. In Med-Arb, the participants agree to be parties to mediation, and if the mediation comes to an impasse, a final settlement will be reached through arbitration. This study first explicates the origin and the development of Med-Arb in the United States. This study shows that the emergence of Med-Arb is benefited from the fact that arbitration has lost its own advantages ie, speed, cost-saving, and maintenance of an ongoing relationship between the disputants. Second, this study analyzes four cases in which Med-Arb is applied to various kinds of disputes as a tool of dispute resolution: labor disputes, entertainment disputes, will disputes, and international commercial disputes, consecutively. All those case studies show the generality of Med-Arb as a dispute resolution channel. Third, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages of Med-Arb. Finally, this study discusses the implications of Med-Arb. In particular it provides the universality of this hybrid form of dispute resolution in the East and West. For example, we show that China has its own distinctive Med-Arb system, where it has developed from ancient Confucian philosophy. Japan also emphasizes the role of an arbitrator who settles the disputes in the course of arbitration. The domestic arbitration rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) have a similar process in that arbitration contains an element of conciliation. With regard to the universal characteristics of Med-Arb, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of Med-Arb at a deeper level in the future. One caveat is that it is necessary to handle the issues of the neutrality of the mediator-arbitrator.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.155-178
• /
• 2009

The ODR can be categorized into four distinctive types. First type is the asynchronous non-demeanour method. Second type is the asynchronous demeanour method. Third type is the synchronous demeanour method. Fourth type is the synchronous demeanour method. A typical example of the asynchronous and non-demeanour method is e-mail. The example of the synchronous and non-demeanour method is tele conference. The example of the asynchronous demeanour method is video recordings. The example of synchronous and demeanour method is video conference. The primary benefit of e-mail is to avoid the physical violence. But the costs of email is the lack of emotional aspects of disputants. The benefits of tele conference is ease of use, and reduces the negative aspects of face to face communication. but the costs are limitation of the exchange of written information. The benefits of video conference is the approximation of face to face communication by providing oral as well as visual communication. but it is insufficient to represent eye contact. The common limitations of ODR are as follows. First is the lack of human face. Second is the neutrality of arbitrators and mediators. Third is the authenticity of electronic document. Fourth is the digital divide across South and North and generations. Fifth is the cross-cultural communication. The development strategy of ODR is the training and education of arbitrators and mediators in the area of writing skill. Furthermore, it is necessary to supplement the weakness of email via diverse kinds of expressions to show emotions. Finally, it is necessary to train neutrals in the area of cross-cultural communication.