• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.181-215
• /
• 2001

The thirty-fourth session of UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration was held in New York. Among the topics discussed at the session, many delegations agreed to reform the article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in light of the development of electronic commerce. As for the article 2(2) of the New York Convention, it was agreed to reflect the changes of the article 7 not in the form of a treaty amendment but in the form of an interpretative statement. The topic as to provisional measures has been found so difficult to reach an agreement that most of its texts submitted by the secretariat were left untouched for the lack of time. However, most provisions of the legislative texts on conciliation were dealt with by delegations. The next session is to be held in Vienna. While the Korean Arbitration Act of 1966 was fully amended in 1999, it seems interesting to look at the development in which the arbitration community of the world has already begun discussing the new dimension of the law and practice of international commercial arbitration. It may be considered early to start a new project of reforming the Korean Arbitration Act at this time when only three years passed after it was fully amended. It is, however, worthwhile to remember that some progressive efforts were aborted in amending the Arbitration Act of 1966. One of them is about the same issue on the insertion of some provisions on the enforcement of interim measures of protection to which the priority is given by the Working Group. It seems fair to say that it would not be dangerous to follow the developments and to adapt ourselves to such trends shown in the session. In Korea, the words “arbitration” and “conciliation” are misleadingly interchanged although these two words should be differentiated from each other in the sense of third-party binding decision. It is self-evident from the Korean Arbitration Act and judicial decisions that arbitral awards bind the disputing parties and are to be treated as final judgements by the competent courts. It is, however, not uncommon to find that the word “arbitration” is misinterpreted as having the same meaning of the word “conciliation”. One of the reasons for the confusion is that many legislations in Korea provide for conciliation as having the meaning of arbitration and vice versa. It may be probable that the proposed legislative texts on conciliation could be a kind of useful method to prevent such confusion from being uncontrollable. It is, therefore, necessary that the legislative texts should be introduced into Korea as a legislation on conciliation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.