• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.65-97
• /
• 2014

Arbitration is the dispute methods for speedy and economic resolutions in international commercial areas. In maritime disputes cases in East Asia, Korea and Japan are the regional benefits to cover and deal with the maritime cases on arbitration. And Korea and Japan are the competitive maritime industry for heavy shipbuilding industry, cargo carrier, processing and transhipment service on ports, and ship financial services in national competitive areas. Japan is the Tokyo maritime arbitration commission(TOMAC) as an uniquely capable of dealing with arbitrations involving problems arising in the sea field. TOMAC provides amended its arbitration rules 2014 aiming at matching with the maritime disputes circumstances with three maritime arbitration rules as ordinary rules, simplified rules and the rules of small claims arbitration procedure. KCAB however, as the unique commercial arbitration board in Korea is dealing on all of the commercial disputes on only the international commercial arbitration rules in 2011. Though KCAB is dealt with maritime dispute cases on international arbitration rules in Korea, it is small and simple compared with TOMAC in Japan. Maritime disputes are highly complicated and embroiled with multi-parties contract and subcontracts arising under contracts relating to bills of lading, charter parties, sale and purchase of ships, shipbuilding, ship financing and so forth. This paper is to provides a discussion and comparison on recently arbitration rules focus on the maritime aspects on Korea and Japan. We need to consider to make an independent and special institute and maritime arbitration rules including the multiparty consolidation and med-arb provisions for handling the disputes and resolution of maritime conflict cases in Korea.

• 해양안보
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• pp.137-161
• /
• 2023

제도주의에 따르면 동맹은 회원국 간의 영토분쟁을 방지하고 우호 관계를 증진시킨다. 그렇다면 나토의 회원국인 그리스와 튀르키예의 에게해 분쟁은 왜 계속되는 것일까? 이 연구는 회원국 간 분쟁을 방지하는 동맹의 역할이 해양영토분쟁에서는 제한적으로 나타나는 메커니즘을 설명한다. 해양영토는 육지영토와 다르게 다층적인 경계로 인한 복잡성을 가진다. 또, 기후변화 등에 따라 경계에 영향을 미치는 기준이 변화하는 유동성이 있으며, 해양영토에 상시 경계가 제한되어 대응의 임계점이 모호하다. 오랜 기간 에게해를 사이에 두고 적대적인 관계를 유지해온 그리스와 튀르키예는 1952년 나토에 가입하면서 동맹 관계를 맺게 되었다. 하지만 동맹의 제도에 따른 정보의 투명성과 지속적인 협력에도 불구하고 해양영토분쟁의 특징으로 인하여 동맹의 회원국 간 분쟁 방지 효과는 제한적일 수밖에 없었다. 특히, 석유 시추 등 자원을 둘러싼 문제로 인해 양국의 갈등이 나토의 다른 회원국들과의 관계 악화로 이어지며, 동맹의 결속과 억제력을 약화시키는 문제도 이어지고 있다. 이 연구의 결과는 대한민국의 주변국과의 해양영토 분쟁 및 동맹관계에도 정책적 함의를 주며, 동맹과 해양영토분쟁 연구에도 기여할 것으로 기대한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권30호
• /
• pp.177-199
• /
• 2012

As is generally known, the sovereignty dispute over the Senkaku Islands between China/Taiwan and Japan was triggered by a report commissioned by the UN in 1968, which reported the possibility of a substantial amount of petroleum and natural gas buried in the South China Sea. When the administrative authority over the Ryukyu Islands was transferred from the US to Japan in 1972, jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands was also transferred. A dispute ensued between China (Taiwan) and Japan over the Senkaku Islands except during the period in which formal relations were established between the two states. This paper will take a look particularly at the events that occurred in the 2000's and discuss their recent trends and aspects of the dispute. Though China and Japan agreed to joint resource development in 2008, the agreed zone was a very small area adjacent to the Korea-Japan Joint Continental Shelf Development Zone, and the points of agreement have not been implemented. China has been developing four oil fields including Chunxiao in its waters adjacent to the median line asserted by Japan. However, China also has been excluding the participation of Japan, while Japan has been strongly objecting to the unilateral development of oil fields by China. If indeed the oil fields on China's side are connected past the median line asserted by Japan, then China's unilateral development will infringe upon the potential sovereign rights of Japan, thereby violating international law.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권38호
• /
• pp.13-46
• /
• 2015

Dokdo issue reaches beyond economic and security interest to Koreans, as it is regarded as symbol of her independence. Albeit the fact that Japan has merely no legitimate title over Dokdo, Japan has been tenaciously insisting their jurisdiction over Dokdo since the independence of Korea. Under such circumstances, public outrage towards Japan is most certainly understandable. Yet, mere outrage itself, lacking in logic and factual grounds, can contribute little if not any, to the desirable solution of the problem. Precedents reveal that dealing maritime issues amid lack of profound understanding in international law has often led to undesirable results, such as the inclusion of Dokdo in the Joint Management Fisheries Zone in 1999 Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement. In a sense, adroit use of international law is a critical element in preserving Korea's sovereign rights against persistent Japanese plans to rob Dokdo once again. The Dokdo issue is inextricably bound to international law; the legal status of Dokdo as island, the equitable solution of maritime boundary delimitation and effective control, existence of dispute. Yet, the public policies and arguments made by pundits are generally in lack of understanding in international law. It is now the time for Korea to commence on long-term cross-academia / department plans to establish Dokdo strategy as part of the nationwide maritime strategy effectively using international law as its stronghold.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권36호
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2015

In 1996, China, Japan and the ROK all became the party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Since then, the UNCLOS has been a fundamental basis for the resolution and management of maritime disputes amongst them. However, there still remain acrimonious disputes in the region. Resources nationalism and the revival of geopolitics aggravates the disputes particularly on sovereignty over disputed islands, maritime delimitation and the legal nature of military activities in other States' Exclusive Economic Zones. Under the circumstances, why have the demands for the conclusion of a regional agreement been raised in this region? A desirable regional agreement regarding ocean affairs should be compatible with the rights and obligations under the UNCLOS, a universal norm regarding ocean affairs. This paper will propose a desirable regional agreement by adopting an incremental approach.

• 해양안보
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.211-235
• /
• 2021

1982년 4월 2일부터 6월 14일까지 지속한 포클랜드제도 분쟁 결과, 영국은 전쟁 승리를 통해 극심한 경제불황의 위기를 넘어 과거 화려한 대영제국의 영광을 되찾을 수 있었다. 반면 아르헨티나는 군사독재 정권의 몰락과 민주정권의 탄생에 지대한 영향을 받는다. 본 연구는 포클랜드분쟁에 관해 "DIME on PMESII"를 적용함으로써, 미래 독도에서 발생 가능한 해양분쟁 대응전략을 제시하고자 작성되었다. 특히 분쟁지역을 실효적으로 지배하고 있는 국가가 가진 총체적 국력의 수단으로서 외교·정보·군사·경제, 즉 DIME 능력이 어떤 영향을 미치는지 분석하였다. 동시에 반대 시야에서 해당지역을 실효적으로 지배하지 못하는 국가의 정치·군사·경제·사회·정보 및 기반시설, 즉 PMESII 체계를 적용해 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 독도 해양분쟁 관련 대응전략으로 첫째, 영국과 같이 분쟁영토에 대한 실효적 지배를 효과적으로 지속하고 강화해나가야 한다. 이를 통해, 국민에 대한 애국심 고취 및 전시정부에 대한 지지, 정당한 전쟁명분의 확보, 국제적인 지지를 얻을 수 있다. 둘째, 현대 전쟁을 분석할 때 자국의 DIME 능력을 상대국의 PMESII 체계 약점에 집중하는 'DIME on PMESII'가 효과적임을 증명할 수 있었다. 이제는 전쟁을 수행하는 데 있어 군사력만으로 상호 충돌하는 형태가 아니라 국가의 총체적인 국력인 외교·정보·경제분야 능력을 즉각적으로 투입해야 한다. 셋째, 미래 독도 해양분쟁에 대한 철저한 대비가 필요하므로, 해양에서의 제한된 국지전 가능성을 극복하기 위해 주변국에 대한 적절한 전략이 필요하다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.145-179
• /
• 2001

The Federal Maritime Commission is issuing new regulations implementing the Administrative dispute Resolution Act. The new regulations expand the Commission's Alternative dispute resolution(“ADR”) services, addressing guidelines and procedures for arbitration and providing for mediation and other ADR services. This rule replaces current subpart U-(Conciliation Service), with a new subpart U-(Alternative Dispute Resolution), that contains a new Commission ADR policy and provisions for various means of ADR. The rule also revises certain other regulations to conform to the Commission's new ADR policy. So, this paper object was to study on the FMC's ADR in U.S. with the emphasis on the final rule analysis.

• 해양환경안전학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 해양환경안전학회 2017년도 추계학술발표회
• /
• pp.221-221
• /
• 2017

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권42호
• /
• pp.154-195
• /
• 2017

This paper is to analyse conflict between the US and China over the South China Sea and Korea's responses. To this end the paper is composed of 6 chapters titled instruction; the current status of South China Sea sovereignty disputes; changes in US and Chinese maritime security strategies and the strategic values of the South China Sea; key issues and future prospects for US-China conflicts in the South China Sea; South Korea's security and diplomatic responses; and conclusion. The recent East Asian maritime security issue has evolved into a global issue of supremacy between the US and China, beyond conflicts over territorial disputes and demarcation among the countries in the region. China is pursuing offensive ocean policy to expand economic growth. The core of the maritime order that the United States intends to pursue is the freedom of navigation in the oceans and the maintenance of maritime access. China is making artificial islands in the South China Sea, claiming the sovereignty of these islands, building strategic bases in East Asia, and securing routes. The United States has developed several "Freedom of Navigation Operations" to neutralize the declaration of the territorial sea surrounding Chinese artificial islands. We can not be free from marine conflicts in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Regarding the South China Sea dispute, it is expected that the strategic competition and conflict between the two countries will intensify due to China's failure to make concessions of core interests and adherence to the US compliance with international norms. In the midst of conflict over the South China Sea, we need a harmonious balance between our alliance security and economic diplomacy. We must continue our efforts to strengthen the ROK-US alliance but not to make China an enemy. Considering the significant impacts of the oceans on the survival and prosperity of the nation, we must continue to develop our interest in the oceans, appropriate investments and tactical strategies.