• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.25-45
• /
• 2018

International commercial arbitration is an inseparable part of today's international commerce. International transactions are becoming increasingly complex. Problems brought by multi-party and multi-contract arbitration pose problems for traditional arbitration systems. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) has released updated International Arbitration Rules(2016 Rules) and has adopted innovations similar to those introduced in the rules of major international arbitration institutions in recent years. The changes in the 2016 Rules are intended to increase the efficiency of the arbitral process, and introduce the process for consolidation of claims. For international commerce contracts, it would be appropriate, and necessary, to adopt a multi-party arbitration clause, as consolidated arbitration provides effective resolutions for multi-party disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 1999

International commercial arbitrations have developed into a simple form in which both parties involved in the dispute by a contract intend to solve the dispute through the legal arbitration system. however nowadays the above traditional form taken by international projects are rarely seen and instead the form of complex arbitration in which many parties are involved has become more and more universal. The complex arbitration means not only many-sided parties concerned but also means a plural number of contract involved in conflicts, a plural number of issues involved in conflicts and a plural number of contracts though their contractors are not in a plural number. However in this report the complex arbitrations will be studied into categories as follows : 1. Pure multi-issue situations, 2. Pure multi-party situations, 3. Pure multi-contract situations. A Pure Multi-Issue arbitration basically includes a plural number of claims between the two parties concerned. A Pure Multi-party case classically presupposes an arbitration clause which involves a plural number of parties concerned. After Party A takes a legal proceeding and then Party B institutes a request to Party C in the above proceeding. In that case the problem arises on whether it is allowed to do so or not. A Pure Multi-Contract case presupposes that when Party A and Party B have independent arbitration clauses based on separate contract relations, respectively, the problem is whether both above-mentioned proceedings can be unified into one or not. As for the above-mentioned complex arbitration, though international treaties are being formed, including the WTO treaties, the NAFTA treaties, the Mercosur treaties and others, legal regulations and customs have not yet been formed domestically. The institutional preparations will be necessitated in consideration of national legal status as well as international treaty relations.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.99-128
• /
• 2014

Last year, Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center(SIDRC) was set up to facilitate and promote international arbitration in Korea. This study was focused on the revision of arbitration rules such as ICC, SIAC, HKIAC and JCAA. As a leading arbitration institution in the world, ICC has tried continuously to provide more efficient service to their client by adopting emergency arbitrator(EA) & multi party arbitration. Other three institutions also introduced almost same mechanism to compete each other. These two new system is very innovative in international arbitration. First of all, EA was designed to provide interim measure service to preserve or protect parties' right before the constitution of arbitral tribunal. Arbitration institutions and arbitral tribunals should be careful to decide these requests are legitimate or not because too hasty approval on joinder or consolidation without full consideration such as parties' intention or argument may issue another serious problem - setting aside an award rendered after joined or consolidated.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2008

When several parties are involved in a dispute, it is usually considered desirable that the issues should be dealt with in the same proceedings, rather than in a series of separate proceedings. This saves time and money. It avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions on the same issues of law and fact, since all issues are determined by the same tribunal at the same time. Where there is a multi-party arbitration, it may be because there are several parties to one contract, or it may be because there are several contracts with different parties that have a bearing on the matters in dispute. In international trade and commerce, for individuals, corporations or state agencies to join together in a joint venture or consortium or in some other legal relationship of this kind, in order to enter into a contract with another party or parties, where such a contract contains an arbitration clause and a dispute arises, the members of the consortium or joint venture may decided that they would each like to appoint an arbitrator. A different problem arises where there are several contracts with different parties, each of which has a bearing on the issues in dispute. A major international construction project is likely to involve not only the employer and the main contractor, but also a host of special suppliers and sub-contractors. Each of them will be operating under different contracts often with different choice of law and arbitration clauses. The appointment of the arbitrator or the composition of the arbitral tribunal should be in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The parties have to be equally treated in the constituting of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral proceedings. However, the right of the parties to nominate a member of the arbitral tribunal could be taken away from them, if they are subject to the restrictions by means of the law of the country where the arbitration is taking place. That is, multiple parties jointly should nominate one arbitrator, where there they have to exercise their substantive right in common, or one of them exert his substantive right, then it has an effect on another parties, or they, whether as claimant or as respondent, get the same or similar treatment in the arbitral procedure. Therefore it is necessary to intend to settle multi-party disputes quickly and efficiently.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2015

This paper sets out a multi-dimensional approach that parties drafting a "hybrid clause" for their arbitration agreement can adopt, for purposes of maximizing enforceability, taking into account the multi-jurisdictional interplay between the seat Court, the governing law and the enforcement Court(s), as well as mandatory rules that can be present in the lex arbitrii, the governing law, and/or the law of the enforcement for a. This paper draws on both the co-authors' practice experience, as well as first principles of party autonomy in light of mandatory rules, based predominantly on the scholarship of Briggs and Nygh.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.125-154
• /
• 2012

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published revised rules of arbitration, which come into force on 1 January 2012 (the ICC Rules 2012). The ICC Rules 2012 apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 January 2012, unless the parties have agreed to submit their arbitration to the rules in effect on the date of their arbitration agreement (Article 6(1)). The ICC Rules 2012 explicitly require both the arbitrators and the parties to make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. The changes will force participants to define more aspects of their claims and outline the merits of the dispute earlier on in the process. The Rules also contain new penalties for behaving in a way that undermines the process's efficiency. The new Rules permit the tribunal, when making allocating costs, to take into account the extent to which each party has conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Entirely new provisions relate to the emergency arbitrators, case management, and multi-party arbitrations. The ICC Rules 2012 take into account developments in arbitration practice and procedure, and in information technology, since the last revision of the rules in 1998, the aim being to provide modern and flexible procedures that promote efficiency in the arbitral process.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-70
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and discussions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules that have been discussed and considered by the Working Group. At its thirty-ninth session (New York, 19 June-7 July 2006), the Commission agreed that, in respect of future work of the Working Group, priority be given to a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976). At its forty-fifth session (Vienna, 11-15 September 2006), the Working Group undertook to identify areas where a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules might be useful. At that session, it was considered that the focus of the revision should be on updating the Rules to meet changes that had taken place over the last thirty years in arbitral practice. The largely amended provisions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are as follows : Notice of arbitration and response to the notice of arbitration (Article 3), Designating and appointing authorities (Article 4 bis), November of arbitrators (Article 5), Appointment of arbitrations (Article 6), Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration (Article 7 bis), Challenge of arbitrators (Article 9), Replacement of an arbitrator (Article 13), Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Article 21), Interim measures (Article 26), Form and effect of the award (Article 32), and Liability of arbitrators (Proposed additional provisions). There are some differences between the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In order to jnternationalize the Korea's commercial arbitration system, it is desirable that the main articles of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should be admitted to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In conclusion, the Commission was generally of the view of any revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should not alter the structure of the text, its spirit, its drafting style, and should respect the flexibility of the text rather than make it more complex. The Working Group agreed that harmonizing the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law should not be automatic but rather considered only where appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

The emergence of a multi-door courthouse is related with a couple of reasons as follows: First, a multi-door courthouse was originally initiated by the United States government that increasingly became impatient with the pace and cost of protracted litigation clogging the courts. Second, dockets of courts are overcrowded with legal suits, making it difficult for judges to handle those legal suits in time and causing delays in responding to citizens' complaints. Third, litigation is not suitable for the disputant that has an ongoing relationship with the other party. In this case, even if winning is achieved in the short run, it may not be all that was hoped for in the long run. Fourth, international organizations such as the World Bank, UNDP, and Asia Development Bank urge to provide an increased access to women, residents, and the poor in local communities. The generic model of a multi-door courthouse consists of three stages: The first stage includes a center offering intake services, along with an array of dispute resolution services under one roof. At the second stage, the screening unit at the center would diagnose citizen disputes, then refer the disputants to the appropriate door for handling the case. At the third stage, the multi-door courthouse provides diverse kinds of dispute resolution programs such as mediation, arbitration, mediation-arbitration (med-arb), litigation, and early neutral evaluation. This study suggests the extended model of multi-door courthouse comprised of five layers: intake process, diagnosis and door-selection process, neutral-selection process, implementation process of dispute resolution, and process of training and education. One of the major characteristics of extended multi-door courthouse model is the detailed specification of individual department corresponding to each process within a multi-door courthouse. The intake department takes care of the intake process. The screening department plays the role of screening disputes, diagnosing the nature of disputes, and determining a suitable door to handle disputes. The human resources department manages experts through the construction and management of the data base of mediators, arbitrators, and judges. The administration bureau manages the implementation of each process of dispute resolution. The education and training department builds long-term planning to procure neutrals and experts dealing with various kinds of disputes within a multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, it is necessary to establish networks among courts, law schools, and associations of scholars in order to facilitate the supply of manpower in ADR neutrals, as well as judges in the long run. This study also provides six case studies of multi-door courthouses across continents in order to grasp the worldwide picture and wide spread phenomena of multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, the United States and Latin American countries including Argentina and Brazil, Middle Eastern countries, and Southeast Asian countries (such as Malaysia and Myanmar), Australia, and Nigeria were chosen. It was found that three kinds of patterns are discernible during the evolution of a multi-door courthouse model. First, the federal courts of the United States, land and environment court in Australia, and Lagos multi-door courthouse in Nigeria may maintain the prototype of a multi-door courthouse model. Second, the judicial systems in Latin American countries tend to show heterogenous patterns in terms of the adaptation of a multi-door courthouse model to their own environments. Some court systems of Latin American countries including those of Argentina and Brazil resemble the generic model of a multi-door courthouse, while other countries show their distinctive pattern of judicial system and ADR systems. Third, it was found that legal pluralism is prevalent in Middle Eastern countries and Southeast Asian countries. For example, Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia have developed various kinds of dispute resolution methods, such as sulh (mediation), tahkim (arbitration), and med-arb for many centuries, since they have been situated at the state of tribe or clan instead of nation. Accordingly, they have no unified code within the territory. In case of Southeast Asian countries such as Myanmar and Malaysia, they have preserved a strong tradition of customary laws such as Dhammthat in Burma, and Shriah and the Islamic law in Malaysia for a long time. On the other hand, they incorporated a common law system into a secular judicial system in Myanmar and Malaysia during the colonial period. Finally, this article proposes a couple of factors to strengthen or weaken a multi-door courthouse model. The first factor to strengthen a multi-door courthouse model is the maintenance of flexibility and core value of alternative dispute resolution. We also find that fund raising is important to build and maintain the multi-door courthouse model, reflecting the fact that there has been a competition surrounding the allocation of funds within the judicial system.

• 한국HCI학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.02a
• /
• pp.601-606
• /
• 2008

When sharing real-time media in the ubiquitous computing environments, due to heterogeneous performance of devices, conflict to users' media service requirements might be occurred. To address the problems, there are extensive researches about media streaming QoS control schemes in the aspects of network or application. However, their deployment has met with difficulty because of critical reasons such as high development cost and system complexity. In this paper, in the level of media services, we propose a negotiation approach to offer improved quality of media services. The proposed approach Constructs video distribution group between producer and consumer services, which target to globally minimize the concession of users' quality requirements Consequently, users can be provided video services in the level of conformation to the users' expectation.