• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2000

At its thirty-second session in 1999, the UNCITRAL had before it the requested note entitled "Possible future work in the area of international commercial arbitration." After concluding the discussion on its future work in the area of international commercial arbitration, it was agreed that the priority items for the working group should be conciliation, requirement of written form for the arbitration and enforceability of interim measures of protection. the Commission entrusted the work to the Working Group on Arbitration which held its thirty-second session at Vienna from 20 to 31 March 2000. The Working Group discussed agenda item 3 on the basis of the report of Secretary General entitled "Possible uniform rules on certain issues concerning settlement of commercial disputes : conciliation, interim measures of protection, written form for arbitration agreement." At its thirty-three session in 2000, the UNCITRAL had before it the report of Secretary General on agenda item 3 discussed by the Working Group. The Working Group discussed the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; (1) Admissibility of certain evidence in subsequent judicial or arbitral proceedings ; (2) Role of conciliatior in arbitration or court proceedings ; (3) Enforceability of settlement agreements reached in conciliation proceedings ; (4) Other possible items for harmonized treatment : a) Admissibility or desirability of conciliation by arbitrators b) Effect of an agreement to conciliate on judicial or arbitral proceedings c) Effect of conciliation on the running of limitation period d) Communication between the conciliator and parties ; disclosure of information e) Role of conciliator. It was generally considered that decisions as to the form of the text to be prepared should be made at a later stage when the substance of prepared solutions would become clearer. However, it was noted that model legislative provisions seemed to be appropriate form for a number of matters proposed to be discussed in the area conciliation. There was general support in the Working Group for the proposition to perpare a legislative regime governing the enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by arbitral tribunals. It was generally considered that legislative regime should apply to enforcement of interim measures issued in arbitration taking place in State where enforcement was sought as well as outside that State. It was generally observed that there was a need for provisions which conformed to current practice in international trade with regard to requirements of written form for arbitration agreement. The view was adopted by the Working Group that the objective of ensuring a uniform interpretation of the form requirement that responded to the needs of international trade could be achieved by : preparing a model legislative provision clarifying, for avoidance of doubt, the scope of article 7(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration : and adopting a declaration, resolution or statement addressing the interpretation of the New York Convention that would reflect a broad understanding of the form requirement. There was general agreement in the Working Group that, in order to promote the use of electronic commerce for international trade and leave the parties free to agree to the use of arbitration in the electronic commerce sphere, article II(2) of the New York Convention should be interpreted to cover the use of electronic means of communication as defined un article 2 of the Model Law on Electronic Commerce and that it required no amendment to do that. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider to the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues concerning conciliation and arbitration proceedings, possibly indicating whether future work should be towards a legislative text or non-legislative text.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.143-162
• /
• 2015

Russia has a huge amount of energy resources. It is an attractive factor to countries which spend loads of energy. Republic of Korea is also one of large energy consumption countries. Therefore, It will be needed to raise energy cooperation with Russia. It's companies will increase trade focusing on the energy industry in the long term. Recently, However, Foreign companies should be careful when they enter the rapidly changing Russia market. In other words, companies will need a strategic approach to prepare the early case assessment and how to solve a possible dispute as they analyze cost and profit in business. This study is analyzing several dispute cases related in Russia. It presents some strategies for Korean companies such as dispute resolution method, arbitration institution selection method and so on. In addition, it proposes the introduction of the early case assessment for reducing a waste of time and cost. Furthermore, according as the importance of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises is highlighted in international community, companies should prepare practical division to establish a system of responsible business conduct. Finally, they will have to get an advice and counseling from the Russia legal experts in the early stages of the contract.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.79-101
• /
• 2012

In 2010, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) initiated work on the settlement of disputes in international e-commerce through online dispute resolution (ODR). The basic goal is to use ODR to resolve disputes with low value but high volume in international e-commerce. The background is that consumers have no way to solve their legal problems in this area. An ODR system is intended to create a new way to enforce their rights. However, the legal situations of the countries in the e-commerce sector, particularly in consumer protection, are very diverse. Thus, no reasonable model for conflict resolution is available. Some countries consider this as public policy and want absolute protection of their consumers. Other countries want to encourage freer e-commerce trading. This diversity of consumer protection policy is an obstacle to ODR. However, sooner or later, reaching an agreement is feasible because each representative is making a reasonable effort to reach the goal.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2008

Northeast Asia is increasingly making a transition to distinctive and crucial region in the 21st Century and growing into one of world's top three economic spheres along with the EU and NAFTA. In 2003, Korean government announced the Northeast Asian economic hub country plan as an important agenda. As a means of coping with the changing global environment, Korean government designated Incheon in 2003 as the country's first Free Economic Zone ahead of Busan and Gwangyang Bay in the south of the country because Incheon has a geographical advantage linking North America and Europe with Incheon International Airport and Incheon Seaport. The purpose of this paper is to make research on establishment and operation of an arbitral body entitled ${\ulcorner}International Arbitration Center{\lrcorner}$ (IAC) within Incheon Free Economic Zone(IFEZ). For the purpose of this, the writer in this paper, reviewed the necessity of the IAC's establishment and its legal basis as well as the role and function of the Center. Also, the writer presented plans for how to operate the IAC and how to cooperate with the key arbitral organizations of foreign countries for the settlement promotion of commercial disputes including trade and investment. With development of the IFEZ, world-renowned enterprises will invest in the Incheon economic bloc and conduct economic activities, business operation, marketing, logistics, financing, etc. In this connection, diverse types of commercial disputes are expected to occur between foreign companies entering the IFEZ and Korean firms. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) has been operating its liaison office in the IFEZ since 2004. However, in view of the increasing arbitration demand, the IAC should be set up in the IFEZ in the near future by the positive support of the government in the respect of both administration and finance because the free economic zone-related law provides for the installation of arbitration organization. For the success of the IAC, the Center will have to provide not only good quality of arbitral services that can satisfy arbitration parties but also need to conduct researches and make efforts so that arbitration can be utilized well in the IFEZ. If the IFEZ can provide advantageous business environments to those multinational enterprises intending to the Incheon economic bloc, the IAC will also contribute to the settlement of commercial disputes arising from the Gaeseong Industrial Complex in North Korea in view of the geographical advantage and logistic benefit of the IFEZ. Finally, this paper also suggests a new model for a joint dispute resolution system by the initiative of Korean government and Korean arbitral organizations for the settlement of commercial disputes within Northeast Asia, for which the CAMCA(Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas) of NAFTA can be a good example.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.87-101
• /
• 2022

Since Research and Development has been expanded by government, It is very important to evaluate the outcome of Research and Development. Government have levied the penalty of researchers who misused research funding as time goes on. However, there is no protect law for the research before 2021. Government put new committee for the researchers to judge whether their action is legal or illegal based of Innovation Act 2021. Due to the various outcome index of research and development, many firms which is paticipating the research and development have been confused the outcome index. Also, It is difficult for government agencies for management to evaluate the outcome. Even if the committee is trying to solve dispute between researchers and the government agencies, it is not enough to solve it. Therefore, we need to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR), because the ADR has been developved detail skills for long time.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.103-122
• /
• 2004

Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award play an important role in the settlement of the international commercial disputes. The New York Convention makes it a duty for the courts of signatories to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral awards not taking the nationality of the party concerned into consideration. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. The arbitral award has the same force as an irrevocable judgement including effect of excluding further litigation, its execution and formation. But the effect of set aside arbitral award made abroad in arbitral place was denied by France court for the interest of his people. There is no arbitral act but arbitral procedure is regulated by New Code of Civil Procedure in case of France. An appeal against the decision which grants recognition or enforcement is open if the recognition or execution is contrary to international pubic policy in virtue of Art. 1502. Arbitrator may consider compulsory provisions in arbitral place to assure to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.123-169
• /
• 2002

The Advent of the global information structure and the do-called digital revolution raise countless new issues and questions. There are no limitations regulating the expressions on the cyberspace due to internet's of quality anonymity\ulcorner diversity\ulcorner spontaneity. Therefore, the freedom of speech is expanded in both areas of time and space, which was impossible with the old communicating system. The rapid development of the internet may not have occurred without techniques of linking and framing, which provide users flexible and easy access to other website. These techniques have enabled internet users to navigate the internet efficiently and sort through the products, services and information available on the internet. Although online technology raises many new legal issues, the law available to help us resolve them, at least today, is largely based on the world as it existed before online commerce became a reality. Thus the challenge is to predict how these new legal issues may be resolved using the current law. Especially, the damage from the above side effects on the cyberspace can be much more serious than in the real world because of promptness, wideness and anonymity. Therefore, regulating and controling the freedom of speech on the cyberspace became needed, and there are two kinds of opinion; one is that the laws in the real world should be applied for the cyberspace and the other is that regulating and controling the freedom of speech on the cyberspace should be performed by the users of cyberspace not by laws because the cyberspace is a free space and must not be interfered. In this study, the current judicial regulation of cyberspace, the side effects of cyberspace and the limitations of the freedom of speech are studied to solve the above problems with speech and the liabilities of on-line service providers are discussed around defamation the distribution of obscene pictures and information, and infringement of copyright.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2020

The Scope of Application of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and Foreign Investment Act This article examines whether the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and the Foreign Investment Act of North Korea apply to South Korean parties or companies. This article analyzes laws and agreements related to economic cooperation between South Korea and North Korea. Furthermore, this article compares and evaluates laws related to foreign investment and enacted in North Korea. Now, North Korea's door is closed due to economic sanctions against it, but it will be opened soon. Thus, this article prepares for the future opening of North Korea's markets. Is there a rule of laws in North Korea or just a ruler? Are there laws in North Korea? North Korea has enacted a number of legislation to attract foreign investors, referring to those Chinese laws. For example, North Korea enacted the Foreigner Investment Act, the Foreigner Company Act, the Foreign Investment Bank Act, the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, the Foreign Economic Contract Act, the International Trade Act, and the Free Economy and Trade Zone Act, among others. Article 2 (2) of the Foreign Investment Law of North Korea states, "Foreign investors are corporations and individuals from other countries investing in our country." It is interpreted that South Korea is not included in the "other countries" of this definition. According to many mutual agreements signed by South Korea and North Korea, the relationship between the two Koreas is a special relation inside the Korean ethnic group. An arbitration between a South Korean party and a North Korean party has the characteristics of both domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. If the South Korea and North Korea Commercial Arbitration Commission or the Kaesong Industrial Complex Arbitration Commission is not established, the possibility of arbitration by the Chosun International Trade Arbitration Commission, established under North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, should be examined. There have been no cases where the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act is applied to disputes between parties of South Korea and North Korea. It might be possible to apply the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act by recognizing the "foreign factor" of a dispute between the South Korean party and North Korean party. It is necessary to raise legislative clarifications by revising the North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act as to whether Korean parties or companies are included in the scope of this Act's application. Even if it is interpreted that South Korean parties or companies are not included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, disputes between South Korean companies and North Korean companies can be resolved by foreign arbitration institutes such as CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong, or SIAC in Singapore. Such arbitration awards could be enforced in North Korea pursuant to Article 64 of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. This is because the arbitration awards of foreign arbitration institutes are included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. The matter is how to enforce the North Korean laws when a North Korean party or North Korean government does not abide by the laws or their contracts. It is essential for North Korea to join the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2010

In the past, ADR has not been used as frequently in Japan as it has in other parts of the industrialized world. However, though litigation is still the most utilized vehicle of dispute resolution by Japanese financial institutions, this will be changing. The New Financial ADR system, which was created by a June 2009 amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, is meant to deal with every stage of financial-related disputes and, as such, strives to resolve disputes before they become significant and acts to ameliorate any post-ADR issues that may remain, thereby completing the FIEA's purpose to protect investors. Since the foundation of the New Financial ADR system applies to all related industries, new provisions were set out in 16 business related acts, such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, and FIEA itself. October 2010 will mark the formal introduction of a new system of financial ADR in Japan. New Financial ADR in Japan will be modeled on the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom, but will not feature one comprehensive dispute resolution system in which one dispute resolution institution covers all disputes in the financial field. The New Financial ADR system is merely one step towards a foundation of comprehensive financial ADR such as FOS. It must be noted, however, that this all important first step was over seven years in the making, involving a great deal of discussion, debate, and compromise amongst many parts of Japanese government, business, and society. The New Financial ADR system grants participating parties the ability to stop the clock on any statute of limitations which may correspond to any future possible court cases related to the dispute,13 and further grants the ability to suspend related court proceedings while the parties are utilizing the New Financial ADR system. In addition, where financial institutions have not accepted dispute resolution proceedings or have not accepted a special conciliation proposal, the Ministry of Finance may issue an order compelling compliance if it is found that certain actions are necessary to ensure the appropriate operations of a financial institution's business. In Japan, as best practices have not yet been created.