• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2020

This study focuses on the binding power of the interim measures of the arbitral tribunal in ICSID arbitration and the effects of non-compliance. Upon consideration of the intentions of those who made these rules, given the interpretation of the provisions of Article 47 of the ICSID Convention and Article 39 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, it was found reasonable to consider that the interim measures made by the arbitral tribunal in ICSID arbitration were not binding. However, in actual ICSID arbitration, most arbitral tribunals approve the binding power of the interim measures based on the purposes and the characteristics of the interim measures. As such, there is a certain distance between the legislative intention for interim measures in ICSID arbitration and the judicial practice, but considering the demand for maintaining the integrity of the arbitration procedure, it is reasonable to consider that the interim measures are binding. In addition, the fact that the interim measures have binding power can increase the possibility that the party will comply with the interim measures. Thus, the binding power of interim measures not only encourages voluntary compliance to the interim measures of the party, but can also cause negative consequences for the party if it is not met. In other words, the arbitral tribunal will be able to form negative inferences against the party who does not comply with it in a procedural side, and in the practical side, the party who does not comply with the interim measures will be compensated for the additional damages for non-compliance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.381-406
• /
• 2010

The enforcement of international arbitration raises a variety of procedural and related issues in national and international arbitral laws. In addition to the problems it is not easy to understand the rights and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal. Many countries and international rules allow the arbitral tribunal to submit the interim measures applied by a dispute party. However, interim measures are not recognised and enforced by itself in international commercial arbitration. It has not been completed in the rules of arbitration nationally and internationally. This is the reason why the confirmation of international and national laws is important to effect interim measures practically. In the case of Korean arbitral laws do not include articles of enforcement of interim measures even permit rights of decision of interim measures by arbitral tribunal in the national arbitral laws improperly and unreliably. This paper discuses the deficits of enforcement of interim measures which is submitted the type of award by the arbitral tribunal. The paper also points out and refers the revised model law of arbitration by UNCITRAL in 2006 which was changed to allow the interim award and should be imposed its enforcement of any types of interim measures by the arbitral tribunal in international commercial arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.43-66
• /
• 2009

This paper investigates what are the types and legal grounds for interim measures in the U.S. arbitration practices. The statutory ground for the interim measures is the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. Another ground, probably the most important, is the parties' own intentions to adopt the interim measures in their arbitration proceeding. Most typical interim measures in arbitration include preliminary injuction, attachment and antisuit injunction. In the U.S ex parte motion for interim measure is rarely allowed while the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law specified an ex parte interim measure. In launching the interim measures, the US courts have demanded several requirements including imparability, probability of success and passing of the balance test. In general, the U.S. courts have properly interfered with the procedural issues in arbitration unreined but leaving the substantive issues untouched. It is believed that such interference has helped to enhance the credibility in arbitration with respect to fairness and justice.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.215-238
• /
• 2012

This paper is to review the interim measures of arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitration and to compare the emergency arbitrator systems of international arbitration institutions including the ICDR, SCC, SIAC, ACICA, and ICC. Most arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measures of protection. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 are regarded to contribute significantly to the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. A party that needs urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal may make an application for such measures. Major international arbitration institutions have their own rules and provisions for the emergency arbitrator system, which was set forth first by the ICRD in 2006. The application requirements for emergency arbitrators are almost the same. However, there are significant differences in details such as appointments and applications for challenging emergency arbitrators, the process and form of the emergency arbitrator's decision, etc. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider these differences for more desirable emergency arbitrator proceedings in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.65-83
• /
• 2011

The purpose of Emergency Arbitrator System is to provide parties with the possibility of obtaining interim measures before constitution of the arbitral tribunal. This paper examines the Emergency Arbitrator System set forth in Article 32 and Appendix II of Arbitration Rules of Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) in comparison with Article 37 of ICDR International Arbitration Rules. This paper also provides a case study of 4 Decisions rendered by Emergency Arbitrators under the auspices of SCC in 2010. It was found that it took only 4 days on average from the date upon which the request for emergency interim measures was registered to SCC to the decision rendered by Emergency Arbitrators. The figures of average days reflect its rapidity well, one of the most preferred characteristics of arbitration. However, a case study of SCC decisions shows that only one request for interim measures was successfully granted. In other words, it was found that the requirements for granting of interim measures by emergency arbitrator were quite strictly applied. If interim measures is to be granted, it was found that the requesting party should prove to satisfy the requirements for granting of interim measures as follows: First, the requesting party has to demonstrate that it may suffer irreparable or serious harm in commercially-sensible, not in a strictly literal sense unless the interim measure is granted. Second, the party requesting interim measures has to persuade the Emergency Arbitrator that the request was of an urgent nature. Third, the requesting party is required to meet the reasonable possibility that it may succeed on the merits of the claim.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.73-106
• /
• 2004

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Working Group began its deliberations on the topic of interim measures of protection at its thirty-second session (Vienna, 21-30 March 2000), when the Working Group expressed general support for a legal regime governing enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by the arbitral tribunal. Also the Working Group took a preliminary analysis of whether there was a need for a uniform rule on court-ordered interim measures of protection in support of arbitration. The Working Group agreed, at its thirty-third session (Vienna, 20 November-1 December 2000), that the proposed new article to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration on enforcement of interim measures of protection (tentatively numbered article 17 bis) should include an obligation on courts to enforce interim measures if prescribed conditions were met. At its thirty-fourth session (New York, 21 May-1 Jun 2001), in addition to continuing its review of draft article 17 bis, the Working Group proceeded to consider a text revising article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which defined the scope of an arbitral tribunal's power to order interim measures and included an additional provision on the granting of interim measures on an ex parte basis. Discussions in relation to revised drafts of article 17 and 17 bis of the UNCITRAL Model Law have continued at the fortieth session ( New York, 23-27 February 2004). Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect to the subject matter of the dispute. However it may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.103-127
• /
• 2008

This paper is to research the powers and interim measures of the arbitral tribunal in the arbitral proceedings of the international commercial arbitration under arbitration legislation and arbitration rules including the UNCITRAL Model Law and Arbitration Rules. The powers of the arbitral tribunal may be found within the arbitration agreement or any arbitration rules chosen by the parties, or the chosen procedural law. The power of the arbitral tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction is one of the fundamental principles of international commercial arbitration. It is a power which is now found in nearly all modern arbitration and rules of arbitration. Where an arbitral tribunal has been appointed then it will usually have the power to proceed with the arbitration in the event that a party fails to appear. It cannot force a party to attend but it may sanction the failure. While the arbitral tribunal can direct the parties to attend and give evidence the arbitral tribunal has no power to compel a party to give evidence. The arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitration in the absence of the party or its failure to submit evidence and make an award on the evidence before it. Under most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules, the arbitral tribunal has the power to appoint experts and obtain expert evidence. The power to order a party to disclose documents in its possession is a power given to the arbitral tribunal by many national laws and by most arbitration rules. The arbitral tribunal cannot, however, compel disclosure and in the case where a party refuses to disclosure documents then the sanctions that the arbitral tribunal can impose must be ascertained from the applicable rules or the relevant procedural law. A number of arbitration rules and national laws allow for the arbitral tribunal to correct errors within the award. Most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measure of protection. Article 17(1) of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 states: Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant interim measures. Interim measures of protection usually take such forms as (1) conservatory measures intended to prevent irreparable damage and maintain the status quo; (2) conservatory measures intended to preserve evidence or assets. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the arbitral tribunal must have the powers necessary to make interim measures effective. The Article 17 B of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 provides applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders. And the Article 17 H provides recognition of enforcement of interim measures. In conclusion, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of the UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 would contribute significantly to the security of the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. Therefore, Korean Arbitration Law and Arbitration Rules would be desirable to admit such revised articles with regard interim measures.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.6
• /
• pp.101-114
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper examines the "Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (the Arrangement), which became effective on October 1, 2019, calling on courts of mainland China and Hong Kong for reciprocal commitment in support of court-ordered interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings. Because the Hong Kong courts have granted interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings seated in and outside of Hong Kong even prior to the Arrangement becoming effective, this paper focuses on the significance of the Arrangement making Hong Kong the first and only seat outside of mainland China from which parties to arbitral proceedings may successfully obtain interim measures to preserve of assets, properties, and/or evidence from Chinese courts to be enforced in China. Design/methodology - The significance of interim measures in international arbitration and the existing circumstances of interim measures in support of international arbitral proceedings in mainland China and Hong Kong are discussed first in this paper. Due to the confidential nature of arbitral proceedings, while the details of applications for interim measures pursuant to the Arrangement cannot be discussed, in examining the implications of the Arrangement, the relevant and necessary information was made available from the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, as it is one of the six qualified arbitral institutions under the Arrangement. Findings - This groundbreaking Arrangement provides a mechanism for parties with China-related matters to more effectively resolve their disputes, the opportunity for Hong Kong to become an unparalleled seat of arbitration, and for mainland China to overcome some of its negative perceptions in international arbitration. Because the Arrangement also allows parties to directly apply for interim measures from mainland Chinese courts, parties with China-related matters should take note of this potential bypassing of the procedural hurdle, which usually requires an arbitral institution to submit such applications in China, and make strategic decisions accordingly as may be appropriate. Originality/value - Because the Arrangement is a recent yet a significant agreement calling on courts of mainland China and Hong Kong for reciprocal commitment in support of court-ordered interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings, this study will provide useful guidance for parties with China-related matters all over the world, especially in light of China's rapid economic growth and extensive and prominent trade relationships in today's world. Parties who foresee the need for interim measures from mainland Chinese courts should designate Hong Kong as their seat of arbitration and select one of the six qualified arbitral institutions under the Arrangement to administer their arbitral proceedings in order to benefit from the Arrangement.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how governments determine interim measures based on relevant case studies. In most countries, the arbitral tribunal will recognize the interim measures, but china still recognizes the court's own authority. This is inconsistent with international trend. Although the Arbitration Act and the Civil Procedure Act were amended in 2017, but there is no consistency between these laws and arbitration rules for interim measures. Therefore, this paper analyzes the attitude of the Chinese government to interim measures and suggests practical implications for international arbitration dispute resolutions. Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of temporary measures and timely use in China can play an important role in protecting the rights of Korean companies in commercial arbitration.