• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.339-358
• /
• 2004

This article discusses the critical issues on obligations and responsibilities in electronic funds transfer(EFT) between Article 4A of the UCC and the Model Law on International Credit Transfers of UNCITRAL. The electronic fund transfers begin with the issue of the payment order by the originator to the receiving bank for the beneficiary. All obligations and responsibilities of parties concerned occur when the receiving bank accept the originator's payment order to executes. So far, some the most compelling studies have focused on the legal obligations and responsibilities of electronic fund transfer in Korea. Therefore, In this paper, we would like to examine some problems of obligations and responsibilities in electronic fund transfer from Article 4A of UCC and the Model Law on International Credit Transfers of UNCITRAL. And also we present some Implications to reform EFT Law for the efficient application.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.73-106
• /
• 2004

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Working Group began its deliberations on the topic of interim measures of protection at its thirty-second session (Vienna, 21-30 March 2000), when the Working Group expressed general support for a legal regime governing enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by the arbitral tribunal. Also the Working Group took a preliminary analysis of whether there was a need for a uniform rule on court-ordered interim measures of protection in support of arbitration. The Working Group agreed, at its thirty-third session (Vienna, 20 November-1 December 2000), that the proposed new article to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration on enforcement of interim measures of protection (tentatively numbered article 17 bis) should include an obligation on courts to enforce interim measures if prescribed conditions were met. At its thirty-fourth session (New York, 21 May-1 Jun 2001), in addition to continuing its review of draft article 17 bis, the Working Group proceeded to consider a text revising article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which defined the scope of an arbitral tribunal's power to order interim measures and included an additional provision on the granting of interim measures on an ex parte basis. Discussions in relation to revised drafts of article 17 and 17 bis of the UNCITRAL Model Law have continued at the fortieth session ( New York, 23-27 February 2004). Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect to the subject matter of the dispute. However it may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권1호
• /
• pp.31-45
• /
• 2020

As FTAs are introduced, greater trade between the countries results in more disputes between parties to the agreement. Disputes in international trade have previously been settled mainly through international arbitration. However, with the recent rise in negative aspects of the arbitration system, the international community has begun to seek ways to utilize mediation for replacing the arbitration system. Mediation is a dispute settlement system that helps the parties settle their disputes on their own through negotiations. The UNCITRAL, which seeks to unify and develop international trade law, amended the Model Mediation Law in 2018 and adopted the 'United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation' in August 2019 to enable the adoption of the international settlement agreement. This study analyzes the main contents of the 2018 Model Mediation Law and predicts the potential for the development of international commercial mediation as a dispute settlement procedure for future international trade.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.183-232
• /
• 1999

The legislative body of The People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress, enacted the first arbitration act in China's history on August 31st, 1994, which took effect on September 1, 1995. The problems revealed through a comparison of China's Arbitration Act with the UNCITRAL model arbitration law were studied as well as the enacting process, background, status and system, important contents, problems of Chaina's Arbitration Act, and the differences between the old arbitration regulations and the new arbitration act. These are all discussed in this paper. The Arbitration Act is the basic act ruling over china's arbitration system: it unified the previously confusing laws and regulations relevant to the arbitration system, and the act brings out fundamental changes in China's domestic arbitration to the level of international arbitration standards. It is possible to view this act as a cornerstone in China's arbitration system. But, as discussed in this paper, there are still a lot of problems with the new act and only a few of the merits which the UNCITRAL model arbitration law has. First, under China's Arbitration Act, parties enjoy autonomy to some degree, but the range of party autonomy, compared to that of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, is too narrow. Second, because China's Arbitration Act didn't explicitly provide issues which can give rise to debate, a degree of confusion in its interpretation still remains. Third, China's Arbitration Act's treatment of some important principles was careless. Fourth, in some sections, China's Arbitration Act is less reasonable than the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. These problems must be resolved in order to develop China's arbitration system. The best way of resolving these problems for China is to adopt the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. But it is difficult to expect that China will accept this approach, because of the present arbitration circumstances in China. Although it is difficult to accept all the contents of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, China's legislators and practitioners must consider the problems mentioned in this paper.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.495-522
• /
• 2016

The Mongolia is one of the highly impressive potential developing countries in Asia according to open the economic market. Since early 1990 as the falling apart from Russian union, Mongolia has tried to developing economic status with plentiful stocked natural resources in their country. The Mongolia has been accepting the modernizing their legal systems including national amended law of arbitration 2003 which was based in the 'UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985' to harmonize with the international arbitration trends. However, UNCITRAL council announced the adapting members countries excluding Mongolia caused by the inappropriate international standard conditions. As the foreign business partners with Mongolian, it is not easy to agree a site in Mongolia for the place of arbitration on their disputes settlement cause by the weak confidence and precarious interruption under the arbitration processing and enforcement of award on the uncertain law of arbitration on their law of arbitration. Recently, the Mongolian government intends to revise their arbitration law to comply to newly UNCITRAL Model Law in 2006 revision for improving the putting confidence and promoting the choosing arbitration on the place of commercial disputes in Mongolia. It is the point to considering in this article to compare to the problems and alternative ways to the legal and practical arbitration services for reliant and confirming arbitration system in Mongolia for the business parties of Korea.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This study mainly investigates two potential legal regimes expected to govern the use of electronic bills of lading: the Rotterdam Rules (2009) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (2017). Widespread use of electronic bills of lading has been unsuccessful partly due to the absence of a uniform legal regime and protracted uncertainties. This paper aims to carry out an assessment of the possibilities where either of two potential legal regimes could provide certainty to the effect and validity of the use of electronic bills of lading, and contribute to the facilitation of electronically transferring the rights to goods carried by sea. Design/methodology - This paper first introduces two legal instruments and the relevance to electronic bills of lading. Since neither of these legal instruments has yet entered into force, the following section looks into the ratification or enactment possibilities based on a literature review and track records of the past legal regimes of the same kind. Assessment of the different adoption possibilities further requires comparative work of the two legal instruments, which will be based on an analysis of relevant provisions and a literature review. The literature review on the Rotterdam Rules delves into various studies and data produced since the UNCITRAL's adoption in 2009. The literature review on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records heavily relies on UNCITRAL working group documents from 2011 to 2017 together with the final explanatory note. Findings - The main findings can be summarized as follows. Application of the Rotterdam Rules would negate the role of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records assisting in the implementation of the Rotterdam Rules due to some conflicting issues. Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law alone can sufficiently provide a higher level of certainty in the use and effect of electronic bills of lading so long as lawmakers and parties are aware of some issues with the application. What concerns potential users most is the extension of the status quo, where neither of the legal instruments have any effect. It is necessary to take a number of alternatives into consideration, such as promotion of standard clauses and confirmation by a court ruling. Originality/value - Existing studies focus either on the Rotterdam Rules or on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but not both. Not many papers have yet dealt with the Model Law, which was adopted by UNCITRAL only 2 years ago, particularly in the context of a potential legal regime for electronic bills of lading. This paper attempts to introduce the differences between the two legal instruments in regulating the use of electronic bills of lading while providing an assessment of the various possibilities for which parties involved in international trade can be better prepared for the changing legal environment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제36권
• /
• pp.111-140
• /
• 2007

This paper intends to review the qualifications of arbitrator, the disclosure of disqualifications by arbitrator, the challenge grounds of arbitrator, and the challenge procedure of arbitrator under the arbitration laws and rules. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law on person shall be precluded by reason of his nationality from acting as an arbitrators. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenge an arbitrator. Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or any circumstance that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. In conclusion, an arbitrator has a responsibility not only to the parties but also to the process of arbitration, and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and fairness of the process will be preserved.