• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.77-94
• /
• 2017

The United States has used legal theoretical constructions such as equitable estoppel and the third party beneficiary under which non-signatories of an arbitration agreement can be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. The third party beneficiary theory has been used when a signatory defendant argues that a non-signatory plaintiff is bound by an arbitration agreement, or a non-signatory defendant argues that a signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate the plaintiff's claims against the non-signatory. On the other hand, equitable estoppel has developed as two distinct theories. According to the first theory, if a non-signatory party knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement, it can be estopped from denying its obligation to arbitrate. The second theory compels a signatory to arbitrate because of the close relationship between the entities involved and the fact that the claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.101-119
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is contractual by nature. One cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. As commercial transactions become increasingly complex, involving multiple parties and numerous contracts for a single transaction, however, limiting the parties who are subject to arbitration to only those who have signed a contract containing an arbitration clause would frustrate the purpose of such arbitration clause and might lead to injustice among the relevant parties. Therefore, U.S. courts have recognized a number of theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Incorporation by reference and veil-piercing theories have already been recognized by Korean courts. Agency theory and estoppel theory are not recognizable under Korean law. However, the same or similar result may be achieved by applying the third party beneficiary theory or assumption by third party theory. Although a couple of Supreme Court cases appear to be at odds with the assumption theory, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, such court precedents can be and should be reversed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.1-31
• /
• 2014

The foundation of the arbitration jurisdiction is the arbitration agreement entered into by the parties to a contract. Usually, only the signatory parties to a contract and the disputes arising from a contract that includes an arbitration clause or to which the arbitration clause relates are the ones that can be submitted to arbitration. This article discusses some of the arguments for extending the arbitration clause in complex arbitrations, that is, in those cases where there are more than two parties, more than two contracts or more than two parties and contracts. Particularly, this paper addresses multiple contract arbitration when the contracts are related. One of the arguments used by the arbitral tribunal for the extension of jurisdiction is the existence of a link between the contracts. Additional arguments include implied consent, participation in the negotiation and performance of a contract and good faith. The article also discusses some of the typical cases of linked contracts in many civil law countries, such as subcontracts, third party beneficiaries and standard terms of contracts, from which arbitral jurisdictions problems may arise. Finally, special attention is given to Article 14 of the 2008 Peruvian Arbitration Law as the first provision in an arbitration law in Latin America that extends the arbitration agreement to non-signatory parties using for this a mixed approach.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.75-100
• /
• 2018

This study is designed to examine international export control norms, analyze current national export control system and identify the problems thereof, presenting several proposals for development in the system. The Republic of Korea, as a signatory of non-proliferation treaties and multilateral export control regimes, is obligated to comply with the international non-proliferation and export control norms, irregardless of hard or soft laws. Korea's export control system has been implemented in earnest since 2005; however, it contains serious problems in terms of the legal system and objectives of relevant laws and regulations, terms and definitions of the items subject to export controls, catch-all requirements, brokering license, response to the U.S. re-export controls, and so on. Proposals for development in the system include (i) enacting an independent law integrating the current dual-use items export control law and regulations, (ii) making use of the term of "strategic items" as a uniform terminology replacing 'goods etc.', 'strategic goods(inclusive of technology)', 'strategic goods, etc.', 'WMD, etc.' so as to preclude any possibility of misunderstanding, (iii) rewriting the catch-all control requirements, (iv) introducing registration system of brokering firms, (v) including provisions to comply with U.S. reexport controls, and (vi) providing stakeholder with correct and full information on export controls.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.135-167
• /
• 2006

Air service agreements between EU Member States and third countries concluded by Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom after the Second World War infringe EU law. They authorize the third countries to withdraw, suspend or limit the traffic rights of air carriers designated by the signatory States. According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC), these agreements infringe EU law in two respects. On the one hand, the presence of nationality clauses infringes the right of European airlines to non-discriminatory market access to routes between all Member States and third countries. On the other hand, only the EU has the authority to sign up to this type of commitment where agreements affect the exercise of EU competence, i.e. involve an area covered by EU legislation. The Court held that since the third countries have the right to refuse a carrier, these agreements therefore constitute an obstacle to the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, as the opening of European skies to third countries' companies is not reciprocal for all EU airlines. In the conclusion, in order to reconstruct these public international air law, The new negotiations between EU member states and third countries, especially the US, must be designed to ensure an adequate set of principles, so that Member States, in their bilateral relations with third countries in the area of air service, should consider following three models. The 1st, to develop a new model of public international air law such as a new Bermuda III. The 2nd, to reconstruct new freedoms of the air, for example, the 7th, 8th, and 9th freedoms. The 3rd, to explore new approaching models, such as complex system theory explored in the recent social sciences, to make access world-wide global problems instead of bilateral problems between EU member states and United States. The example will show any lessons to air talks between European Union and ROK.