• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.99-124
• /
• 2013

International commercial arbitration is a specially formed mechanism for the final and binding settlement of disputes arisen between contracting parties regarding procedures, structures or other contractual relationship agreed by them. It is a resolution system which is processed autonomously by arbitrators who are appointed by contracting parties without involving the national court. If the contracting parties want to settle their disputes by arbitration, there must be a valid agreement. With a valid agreement, the most important concern is which law(called as the substantive law) should be applied in order to determine the rights and obligations of both contracting parties in relation to the dispute. At this point, the substantive law is really important because it is applied to the dispute itself directly during proceedings as well as it plays an crucial role in scrutiny and enforcement of arbitral awards. This article discusses about the substantive law under international commercial arbitration, specially focusing on the regulations of the ICC rules of arbitration, which is the most widely used all over the world and UNCITRAL Model law, which most countries' rule and laws are based on. By discussing how these rules and regulations should be interpreted and applied, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners when they agree on an arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2006

The governing law in international commercial arbitration may be divided into governing arbitration law and governing substantive law. The former governs the parties' arbitration agreement and the conduct of any subsequent arbitration. But the later governs the parties' substantive rights and obligations, which means the law that governs contract formation and performance, and the law to be applied by the arbitrator to the merits of the dispute. The purpose of this paper is to examine how to determine the substantive governing law when there is express choice or implied choice between parties. Moreover this author checked any restrictions on party autonomy and also any possibilities to deviate from the governing law. In case of express choice the sources of the law or rules of law might be the national law of one of the parties, the neutral law, the general principles of law or lex mercatoria according to the arbitration law selected by the arbitral tribunal. Some arbitration laws or rules empower the arbitrator to decide the case ex aequo et bono or to act as amiable compositions. If the governing law could be determined expressly or impliedly by the parties, the arbitral tribunal would make a selection. In this case the criteria for selecting a governing law are not exactly same from country to country. But failing any indication by the parties as to governing law, the arbitral tribunal should apply the rules of law, the law or the law under the rule of conflict that the arbitrators consider applicable, according to the governing arbitration law. Among the connecting factors offered by the conflict rules, (which means the factors that the arbitrators consider applicable), some legal systems give precedence to the formation of the contract, other system to the place of performance of the contract, and others to the closest connection or centre of gravity. But the Rome Convention, which unified the conflict rules of the contracting states, gives precedence to the law of the domicile of the party which has to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract. Finally this author suggested the Choice of Law Clause which covers governing substantive law and governing arbitration law at the same time. Thus the UNIDROIT Principles as well as any national law may be included as a governing law in international arbitration. So when we make sales or service contract, we should take into consideration of the UNIDROIT Principles as a governing law or a supplement to the governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2018

Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolution systems which settle a dispute by arbitrators(private persons) based on a contract between contracting parties without a judicial litigation system involved. As a valid arbitration agreement is an essential requirement for commencement of arbitration, the first thing to be determined is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement or not when a dispute is submitted. A consumer arbitration agreement usually exists as an arbitration clause in an adhesive contract between consumers and a seller. When consumers buy a product from a seller, they are requested to agree on a general terms and conditions which are unilaterally drafted by a seller in advance. These terms and conditions are not negotiable because it is an adhesive contract and consumers are placed in "take-it-or-leave-it" position. Therefore, even though there is an arbitration agreement between consumers and a seller, it has to be carefully considered whether it has a legal effect or not. In this respect, a court will examine if an arbitration agreement has procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Therefore, as U.S is a well-advanced and arbitration-friendly country, this paper analyzes four U.S cases to find out (i) what a court considers, (ii) how a court examines and interprets procedural and substantive unconscionability and (iii) if there has been a change in regard to a court's decision. By doing so, it will provide some suggestions and guidelines for a consumer arbitration in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.39-70
• /
• 2004

On the above, character of Incoterms and CISG, applicability of Incoterms to the principles of interpretation of CISG for contracts terms, and to the regulations of delivery and payment of price in connection with applicability of Incoterms to CISG are discussed. Conclusions are as follows : Although both rules is regulations which have to understand in connection with int'l trades of goods but CISG is a comprehensive substantive law in connection with a whole dealing course. On the other hand Incoterms are detailed substantive law of performance for two important sphere, that is to say, delivery and payment in the field of performance of CISG. According to both rules, letter credit is realizing processes of detailed performance for delivery and payment. As professor of Honnold's opinion, the relationship between Incoterms and CISG is peculiar and complementary. Therefore instead of considering the both from a point of pure legal views which both rules raise many problems that still a wait well consolidated and acknowledged answers, we have th consider the both with L/C system that still constitute a main payment system. Particularly ICC and Uncitral know that they are not only directly and indirectly involved in regulating process of the both sets but also can apply Incoterms to CISG on connection with the use of L/C.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.7
• /
• pp.108-121
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This paper studies whether the CISG is applicable to the arbitration agreement when the validity of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue. To make the study clear, it limits the cases assuming that the governing law of the main contract is the CISG and the arbitration agreement is inserted in the main contract as a clause. Also, this paper discusses only substantive and formal validity of the arbitration agreement because the CISG does not cover the questions of the parties' capacity and arbitrability of the dispute. Design/methodology - This paper is based on scholarly writings and cases focusing on the principle of party autonomy, formation of contract and the doctrine of separability to discuss characteristic of arbitration agreement. In analyzing the cases, it concentrates on the facts and reasonings that show how the relative regulations and rules are interpreted and applied. Findings - The findings of this paper are; regarding substantive validity of arbitration agreement, the courts and arbitral tribunals consider general principles of law for the contract and the governing law for the main contract. In relation to formal validity of arbitration agreement, the law at the seat of arbitration or the law of the enforcing country are considered as the governing law in preference to the CISG because of the recognition and enforcement issues. Originality/value - This paper attempts to find the correlation between the CISG and the arbitration agreement. It studies scholars' writing and cases which have meaningful implication on this issue. By doing so, it can provide contracting parties and practitioners with some practical guidelines about the governing law for the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, it can help them to reduce unpredictability that they may confront regarding this issue in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.55-88
• /
• 2002

Arbitration Act does not have express provision about voluntary agreement for the arbitration which third party, that is, the expert confirms factual bases of party's relationship of rights and duties, determines contents of the contract, and supplements or modifies contracts, and then the parties obey the expert's decision, but it is more probable that the parties can agree to this kind of arbitration agreement as long as they freely make a contract within the scope of law. However, there is a split of authority on the scope of such arbitration agreement. Some scholars argue that the parties can only agree on the extent of the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract. On the other hand, the other scholars argue that the parties can consent not only the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of contract, but also the expert's supplement or modification of contents of contract. Due to the expert's decision has effect on both parties and judges who give a judgment as a matter of law, this kind of arbitration agrement can contribute to prevent litigation. Also arbitration relieves court's burden, if such arbitration agreement was done on the important disputes. Considering that the arbitration agreement can function as a dispute resolution or a dispute prevention, it is desirable that legislators make the provision about this kind of arbitration and allow the application of arbitration Act in such arbitration agreement. Most scholars agree that the voluntary agreement for the arbitration as to third party's supplement or modification of contents of the contract can be included in the concept of a substantive law. However, it has not been concluded whether the voluntary agreement for the arbitration which follows the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract has the nature of substantive law or procedural law. The dispute about the nature of such arbitration agreement have some shortcomings in the effect of second kind of voluntary arbitration and the applicability of procedural principles. Therefore, it will be more adequate that the focus is given to the original function of this kind of arbitration agreement and the applicability of procedural principles (the neutrality of arbitrator, the assurance of hearing of the parties) rather than the dispute regarding the nature of this kind of arbitration agreement. Considering that more attention is given to the substitutive dispute resolution these days, the function of arbitration as prevention to the litigation and resolution before the litigation should be emphasized. To do this, a legal dispute about such arbitration agreement has to be resolved. More important issues in this kind of arbitration agreement are to retain of the neutral expert and to positively inform the benefits of this institution to the public.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2003

The CISG has been effective since January 1,1988. Even if both parties of international sales contract are located in ratifying countries, the CISG does not apply to certain excluded transactions. The CISG does not apply if the parties have opted out of the CISG. When the parties opt out, they usually agree on the law that is to replace the CISG. In the context of international sales, the frequent and difficult choice of law problems will arise when the CISG applies to a transaction but does not resolve all the legal issues before the tribunal. So this article deals with the question. What should we select the applicable law in such situations? (1) For products liability issues excluded from the CISG by article 4 and 5, the court should apply the substantive law of the market state and the statute of limitations law of the forum, (2) For validity issues excluded from the CISG by article 4(a). the court should apply the UNIDROIT Principles when its rules resolve the issue.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.135-148
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this article is to study on the Comparison of the Basic Law on Electronic Commerce and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act(UETA). The purpose of th Basic Law on Electronic Commerce is to contribute to the national economy by clarifying the legal effect of transactions by means of electronic messages so as to ensure the security and reliability thereof and to secure fair trade, and further by establishing sound and orderly transactions, and promoting electronic commerce. It is important to understand that the purpose of the UETA is to remove barriers to electronic commerce by validating and effectuating electronic records and signatures. It is not a general contracting-the substantive rules of contracts remain unaffected by UETA. Nor is a digital signature statute. To the extent that a State has a Digital Signature Law, the UETA is designed to support and compliment that statute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.