• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) 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. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2018

Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolution systems which settle a dispute by arbitrators(private persons) based on a contract between contracting parties without a judicial litigation system involved. As a valid arbitration agreement is an essential requirement for commencement of arbitration, the first thing to be determined is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement or not when a dispute is submitted. A consumer arbitration agreement usually exists as an arbitration clause in an adhesive contract between consumers and a seller. When consumers buy a product from a seller, they are requested to agree on a general terms and conditions which are unilaterally drafted by a seller in advance. These terms and conditions are not negotiable because it is an adhesive contract and consumers are placed in "take-it-or-leave-it" position. Therefore, even though there is an arbitration agreement between consumers and a seller, it has to be carefully considered whether it has a legal effect or not. In this respect, a court will examine if an arbitration agreement has procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Therefore, as U.S is a well-advanced and arbitration-friendly country, this paper analyzes four U.S cases to find out (i) what a court considers, (ii) how a court examines and interprets procedural and substantive unconscionability and (iii) if there has been a change in regard to a court's decision. By doing so, it will provide some suggestions and guidelines for a consumer arbitration in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2014

Ever since its introduction in the 1927 ICC Arbitration Rules, scrutiny of awards by the ICC Court has been a cornerstone feature of ICC arbitration. Most players involved in the arbitral process are likely to concede that a certain level of review of arbitral awards is both desirable and beneficial. Indeed, proponents among the users are frequently influenced in their choice of the ICC as the administering arbitral institution, based on their strong conviction that time and money invested in the resolution of a dispute is ultimately only well spent if awards are voluntarily complied with or at least less susceptible to be set aside. By providing a look behind the scenes of the scrutiny process, the article does away with tales of excessive intervention on behalf of the arbitral institution when reviewing and approving awards and demystifies the role played by the ICC Court throughout its close interaction with arbitral tribunals operating under the ICC Rules. The article further argues that the scrutiny process can be a highly efficient tool that helps to increase the quality and enforceability of awards rendered under the aegis of the ICC.

• International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security
• /
• v.22 no.12
• /
• pp.125-131
• /
• 2022

The diversity and complexity of criminal, administrative and civil cases resolved by the courts makes it difficult to develop universal automated tools for the analysis and evaluation of justice. However, big data generated in the scope of justice gives hope that this problem will be resolved as soon as possible. The big data applying makes it possible to identify typical options for resolving cases, form detailed rules for the individualization of a court decision, and correlate these rules with an abstract provisions of law. This approach allows us to somewhat overcome the contradiction between the abstract and the concrete in law, to automate the analysis of justice and to model e-justice for scientific and practical purposes. The article presents the results of using dimension reduction, SHAP value, and p-value to identify, analyze and evaluate the individualization of justice and the differentiation of legal regulation. Processing and analysis of arrays of court decisions by computational methods make it possible to identify the typical views of courts on questions of fact and questions of law. This knowledge, obtained automatically, is promising for the scientific study of justice issues, the improvement of the prescriptions of the law and the probabilistic prediction of a court decision with a known set of facts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.29-46
• /
• 2022

Until recently, there has been a circuit split as to whether parties to foreign private arbitral proceedings could seek assistance from the U.S. courts for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782. The circuit courts have differed on the issue of whether a private arbitral proceeding may be considered a "proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal" in terms of the statute, which would ultimately allow or disallow judicial assistance in taking of evidence by the U.S. district courts for use in the requested proceedings. While the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the applicability of §1782 in its Intel decision in 2004, it had not established a test as to what constitutes a foreign or international tribunal for the purposes of §1782, thereby leaving it open for lower courts to continue to interpret §1782 in their own ways, as requests for judicial assistance in taking of evidence are filed. In the recent decision of ZF Auto. US, Inc., v. Luxshare, Ltd., the Supreme Court has finally clarified that in order for an arbitral panel to be a "foreign or international tribunal" under §1782, such panels must exercise governmental authority conferred by one nation or multiple nations. Therefore, private commercial arbitral panels are not "foreign or international tribunal(s)" for the purposes of §1782 because they do not constitute governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies. Such holding is necessary and legitimate for interested parties in international arbitration, as well as, potential parties of arbitration who are contemplating alternative dispute resolution for their dispute(s).

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2011

The electronic trade(e-Trade) revolution is changing the international trade processes dramatically. It permits new kinds of interactions among exporting and importing firms as well as internally within the firms. Ever since the Internet became a popular communications medium in the 1990s, lawmakers have struggled to develop rules for determining which courts can hear disputes involving parties in different choice of law and jurisdictions. In conclusion, I suggest an ongoing research agenda for further refining and developing a more comprehensive cosmopolitan approach. Certainly, as these cases make clear, reconceptualizing the principles underlying court to-court relations is essential in a world where the idea of a transnational community of courts is fast becoming one of the dominant realities of twenty-first century law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.179-199
• /
• 2016

There is legal relation between both parties after contract formation. The parties are liable for performing each duties but a party is not liable for a failure to perform the duties if party proves that the failure was due to the force majeure. The forec majeure has different concepts and legal principles such as change circumstance, hardship, frustration, impediment and so on. Therefore, it need to analyze a historical background and their presence in various domestic legal systems. Although the CISG describes Art. 79 impediment instead of using the force majeure, the impediment has several interpretative limitation. The CISG pursue to harmonize divergent legal concepts and principles from various national laws and legal systems but the harmonization of legal systems make the impediment more confused. The article goes on to analyzes about limitation of the impediment and reviews to examine the force majeure and hardship in PICC. Thus both parties of international contract insert hardship clause in order to prevent the problem of judgment in a court or a court of arbitration under impediment of CISG.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.49-65
• /
• 2010

The expanded role of courts in arbitral procedures is said to have certain detrimental effects on the cost-effective approach to arbitration. This is the case when the court is appointing an arbitrator, pursuant to the specific domestic legal regime. The danger of decisions, especially those with expanded role of courts can create delays and hurdles. Even with contradictory viewpoints, the role of the court should complement the arbitral tribunal and not impede the functioning of arbitration independent of the judicial system. In this paper, two recent cases in Korean Supreme Court are reviewed, trying to find the proper implications on further arbitration practices especially in the stage of arbitrator appointment. Even though the proper appointment of arbitrators is essential to the existence of valid arbitration proceedings, appointment of arbitrators by the courts should constitute an administrative power, and not a judicial power. The cases reviewed make clear that the court must play a facilitative role in international commercial arbitration by assisting the parties in appointing the arbitral tribunal, the court intervention must be kept to a minimum.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the Supreme Court decision of the United Kingdom in Jivraj v. Hashwani (2011) concerning the employment issue of arbitrators, falling within the exception of genuine occupational requirement under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, and nationality of arbitrators. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in Jivraj v. Hashwani, unanimously overturning decision of the English Court of Appeal. The facts of this case and the decision of the Court of Appeal have been widely discussed. The decision of the Supreme Court has been met with approval within the international arbitration community in London, having restored the legal position to that prior to the Court of Appeal's ruling. Thus, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal's finding that arbitrators are the employees of the arbitrating parties. Arbitrators were held to be genuinely self-employed, and therefore outside the scope of the Regulations or Equality Act(2010). As such, the anti-discrimination provisions are not applicable to the selection, engagement or appointment of arbitrators. Most importantly, the Supreme Court's finding that arbitrators are not employees removes the possibility of challenges to arbitration agreements on the grounds that they are in breach of the Equality Act. As a practical matter, parties no longer need to consider carving out nationality provisions when drafting arbitration agreements.