Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Applicability of Mandatory Rules for Seafarer Protection

  • Received : 2020.08.20
  • Accepted : 2020.08.31
  • Published : 2020.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The major legal issues of this case were governing law questions regarding the liability of the shipowner/employer to its employee. It is true that in the absence of the parties' choice of law, the arbitral tribunal may apply the substantive laws or rules of law which it deems appropriate. However, it does not mean that the arbitral tribunal has arbitrary discretion in choosing the appropriate law as the governing law of the case; rather, the arbitrators should carefully examine the conflict of law rules of the forum and the requirement of the law of the country where the upcoming arbitral award will be enforced. They must bear in mind the role of the "connecting factors" in determination of the governing law. Therefore, the application of an alien law, which has minimal connecting factor with the case, may lead to a conclusion that is hardly understood by the parties. On the same token, the arbitrators must pay attention to applying the mandatory rules of a country, the laws of which not being the governing law of the issue. It is said that the application of the mandatory rules is a necessary evil to secure the enforcement of the award in the country, which has national interest in applying its own law to the issue. Further, arbitrators must pay attention to the consistent application of the law and respect the integrity of a legal system to reach a fair conclusion. The place of service of a seafarer for a vessel navigating international sea ought to be its home port country rather than the country of the ship registry, and the party autonomy in choice of the law in a seafarer employment should be respected.

Keywords

References

  1. Changsun Shin, Private International Law, 5th Ed, Fides, 2006.
  2. John A. Scanelli, Applicability of the Jones Act to Foreign Seamen and Foreign Ship-owners. Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 90 S. Ct. 1731 (1970), 12 Wm & Mary L. Rev(No.2) 429 (1970).
  3. Jongjin Yoon, Contemporary Private International Law, Hanol Pub.Co.,2002
  4. Kyung Han Sohn, New Private International Law Act of Korea, Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 3, Private International Law Association of Japan, Shinsinsa, 2001.
  5. Kyung Han Sohn, Party Autonomy and Applicable Law in Arbitration, Korea Private International Law Journal Vol.17, No.1(2011),
  6. Kyung Han Sohn, Arbitral Autonomy: The Concept and Scope, SungKyunKwan Law Review Vol.24 No.3(2012.09)
  7. Kyung Han Sohn, Hyun-Joo Shim, A New Approach on the Arbitration Agreement, Journal of Arbitration Studies Vol.23, No.1(2013)
  8. Myung-Yeop Kim, A Study on Legal Property and Effect of Arbitration Agreement, Journal of Arbitration Studies Vol.11(2001).
  9. Kwanghyun Suk, Explanation of the Private International Law Act, Bakyoungsa, 2013
  10. Kwanghyun Suk, International Commercial Arbitration Law Vol. 1, Bakyoungsa, 2007
  11. Michael McParland, The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Oxford, 2015.
  12. Robert Force, Admiralty and Maritime Law 2nd Ed. Federal Judicial Center 2013.
  13. YoungJoon Mok, Commercial Arbitration Law, Bakyoungsa, 2000
  14. Yong-Kil Kim, A Study on the Scope of Effect in Arbitration Agreements, Journal of Arbitration Studies Vol.23, No.2(2012)
  15. Billedeaux v. Tidex, Inc., 3 F.3d 437 (5th Cir.1993),1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 40755
  16. Payne v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 309 F.2d 546, 549 (6th Cir.1962).
  17. Geyer v. USX Corp., 896 F. Supp. 1440 (E.D. Mich. 1994)
  18. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. v. Tanker Robert Watt Miller, 92 F.3d 1102 (11th Cir. 1996)
  19. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306 (1970)
  20. Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426, 439, 78 S. Ct. 394 (1958).
  21. Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953)
  22. Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co., 321 U.S. 96 (1944).
  23. McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (1994)
  24. Miller v. Int'l. Diving and Consulting Servs., Inc., 669 So. 2d 1246 (La. Ct. App. 5th 1996)
  25. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. 362 U.S. 539(1960), 80 S. Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941.
  26. Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 90 S. Ct. 1772 (1970)
  27. Neely v. Club Med Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 63 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1995).
  28. Nunez v. B&B Dredging. Inc., 108 F. Supp. 2d 656 (E.D. La. 2000)
  29. Slaven v. BP Am. Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1472 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
  30. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2011 Da 60247, November 28, 2013.
  31. United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc., 421 U.S. 397, 401-411 (1975)