• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.181-215
• /
• 2001

The thirty-fourth session of UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration was held in New York. Among the topics discussed at the session, many delegations agreed to reform the article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in light of the development of electronic commerce. As for the article 2(2) of the New York Convention, it was agreed to reflect the changes of the article 7 not in the form of a treaty amendment but in the form of an interpretative statement. The topic as to provisional measures has been found so difficult to reach an agreement that most of its texts submitted by the secretariat were left untouched for the lack of time. However, most provisions of the legislative texts on conciliation were dealt with by delegations. The next session is to be held in Vienna. While the Korean Arbitration Act of 1966 was fully amended in 1999, it seems interesting to look at the development in which the arbitration community of the world has already begun discussing the new dimension of the law and practice of international commercial arbitration. It may be considered early to start a new project of reforming the Korean Arbitration Act at this time when only three years passed after it was fully amended. It is, however, worthwhile to remember that some progressive efforts were aborted in amending the Arbitration Act of 1966. One of them is about the same issue on the insertion of some provisions on the enforcement of interim measures of protection to which the priority is given by the Working Group. It seems fair to say that it would not be dangerous to follow the developments and to adapt ourselves to such trends shown in the session. In Korea, the words “arbitration” and “conciliation” are misleadingly interchanged although these two words should be differentiated from each other in the sense of third-party binding decision. It is self-evident from the Korean Arbitration Act and judicial decisions that arbitral awards bind the disputing parties and are to be treated as final judgements by the competent courts. It is, however, not uncommon to find that the word “arbitration” is misinterpreted as having the same meaning of the word “conciliation”. One of the reasons for the confusion is that many legislations in Korea provide for conciliation as having the meaning of arbitration and vice versa. It may be probable that the proposed legislative texts on conciliation could be a kind of useful method to prevent such confusion from being uncontrollable. It is, therefore, necessary that the legislative texts should be introduced into Korea as a legislation on conciliation.

• Korea Journal of Hospital Management
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.123-144
• /
• 2009

Recently, a long strike by hospital labor union emerged as a serious social issue. During the Worldcup Games in June, 2002, labor strikes broke up at 'C', 'K' and other hospitals, and in 2007, 'Y' hospital suffered much from a strike. Such series of extreme labor disputes have awakened people of importance of a more stable labor-management relationship for the medical institutions responsible for people's health than any other business organization. The purpose of this study was to examine the labor-management disputes at 'Y' hospital in 2007 and 'C' and 'K' hospitals in 2002. The results of this study can be summarized as follows; First, requests of the labor union such as pay raise, reemployment of the irregular workers as regular employees and participation of the labor union in personnel affairs are the long-held or core issues suffered by the medical institutions. Such issues are not independent from each other but complicated with each other surrounding the pay raise. Accordingly, it is not easy to determine the genuine bone of issue for labor-management disputes. Second, the model type of disputes between labor and management at medical institutions may be strike. However, it is conceived that the type of disputes would be subject to change as the essential medical service area system began to be operated since 2008. Third, the common characteristic of the labor strike among the 3 sample hospitals was occupation of the hospital lobby for a sit-in strike to maximize the negative effects of strike. Article 42 (Prohibition of Violence) of Labor Union and Labor Relation Coordination Act prohibits occupation of production or other important business facilities. In addition, since Ministry of Labor interprets that the hospital lobby belongs to the important business facilities enumerated by Article 42 of the above act, occupation of the hospital lobby for a sit-in strike may be too controversial to be admitted as a fair act of labor dispute when its legitimacy should be judged. Fourth, the counter-measures taken by the hospitals against the strike were observance of the principle 'no labor no pay,' closure, legal action, accusation, claim for recovery of damage, provisional seizure, disciplinary punishment, etc., but the principle of 'no labor, no pay' was not applied in a fair manner by 'C' and 'K' hospitals. However, 'Y' hospital applied this principle thoroughly to the strike; the hospital conduced to correction of the wrong labor-management relationship by refusing inclusion in the labor collective agreement of a provision about payment of wage during the period of strike or labor union's request to that effect during a strike. In addition, 'Y' hospital took an effective measure to end the strike earlier by notifying the labor union of cancellation of the collective agreement and banning the unionists from entering the hospital.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.81-108
• /
• 2008

Since the declaration made by UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on EEZs, The open seas of Northeast Asia, considerd as a convention area, needed new agreements in conformity with the changes brought by the introduction of the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) system. The Contracting Parties of these agreements set up their own EEZs, which extend certain ranges from their baselines, Fishing in the other party's EEZ is done based on mutual agreements, which take into account traditional fishing activity in the zones. Seperate fishries management systems, in accordance with the relevant legal status of the waters, are applied to individual overlapping areas: Middle Zone in the Bast Sea and the waters south of jeju Island, Interim Measure Zone in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea, and the Transitional Zone in the Yellow Sea. They decided to conclude fisheries agreements as the provisional agreement under Article 74(3) of the UN Convention before the delimitations of the EEZs to avoid the territorial disputes. China and Japan concluded the Fishries Agreement in the November 1997, allowing each coastal State 52 mile EEZ. it was followed by Korea and Japan in September 1998, reaching a final compromise. And also Korea and China came to a satisfactary settlement in November 1998. Fisheries agreements have been established between the three North-east Asian States, the agreement are all bilateral. That implies inefficient resource management on the overlapping waters of the three states, especially on the East China Sea. The Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement and the China-Japan Fishery Agreement worked as governing rules in the North-east Asian seas before the establishment of EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones). However the conclusion of the bilateral fishery agreements, Korea China and Japan have developed EEZs, and these three countries have competed for the exploitation of fisheries resources. Therefore, the issue of fisheries resource management was no longer a single countries' problem and emerged as a common issue facing these three countries. In recognition of the above-mentioned problem, it is needed for the construction of cooperative System fishery management in the North-east Asian seas. Therefore, cooperative measures should be establishied. The final goal of the construction of fisheries management cooperative system is to establish sustainable fisheries in the North-east Asian seas. However, there is a big difference in fisheries management tools, fishing gear, exploitation rate of species, etc. This implies that a careful approach should be taken in order to achieve the cooperative fisheries management among Korea, China and Japan. conclusionly, the Governments of Korea, China and Japan should complement three bilateral agreemens, and which they prepares to 'Fisheries Resource Restore Program' Between Korea, China and Japan in the adjacent waters south of Jeju Island.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2022

China has been pushing for a systematic strategy for territorialization over a long period of time to invade Korea's West Sea (Yellow Sea) in order to create China's territorial water. China's strategy for territorializing the West Sea is an activity in which China curbs the use of South Korea and enforces the illegal use of China in order to dominate the West Sea exclusively. China aided Chinese fishing boats that engaged in illegal fishing in Korea's jurisdiction as a means to territorialize the West Sea, and is opposed to combined exercise and training of Korea and the United States Naval Forces in the West Sea, while intentionally entering KADIZ(Korea Air Defense Identification Zone). In addition, Beijing used 'scientific exploration and research' measures as a pretext for its strategies in order to encroach on Korea's West Sea. China is carrying out such work to announce to the world that China is a systematic and organized country while consistently attempting to dominate the West Sea. China's activities in the West Sea seriously infringe South Korea's sovereignty. In order to respond to China's strategies of territorialization in the West Sea stated above, I analyzed the rejection effect of the ROK-US combined military training in the West Sea and presented a 'proportional response strategy centered on the ROK-US combined forces'. Korea should be able to respond proportionally to China's activities in the seas around the Korean peninsula, and Korea should be able to neutralize China's attempt to a Fait Accompli. In addition, just as China installs buoys in the Korea-China Provisional Measures Zone, Korea should be able to install and actively utilize some devices in the West Sea and for the use of free and open West Sea. Korea should not just wait for the tragic future to come without preparing for China's gradual and long-term strategy, and Seoul needs to respond to China's maritime policy in the West Sea with a more active attitude than it is now. China has historically taken a bold and aggressive response to neighboring countries that are consistent with a passive attitude, on the other hand, Beijing has taken a cautious approach to neighboring countries that respond with an active attitude. It should not be forgotten that Korea's passive response to the Chinese strategy in the name of a 'realistic approach' such as Korea's economic dependence on China for economy will result in China's success for territorialization of the West Sea.