To realize the spirit of the South-North Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000, the competent authorities of the South and the North of Korea have reached two Agreements to settle commercial disputes as well as to set up an arbitral organization called 'South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission'. The Commission is an institutional organization for settlement of commercial disputes arising from trade and investment between south and north Korea. Under the situation, it is becoming a problem of vital importance how to manage and control the Commission for prompt and effective settlement of south-north commercial disputes. While analyzing the above two Agreements for dispute-settlement mechanism, the author proposes desirable ideas and directions in connection with the Commission as follows: 1. First of all, the Commission should become a central common system for settlement of commercial disputes which meets the demand of capitalistic market economy. 2. The Authorities of south and north Korea should recognize that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of disputes resolution such as arbitration and conciliation to be made by the Commission would promote the orderly growth and encouragement of south-north trade and investment. 3. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) should be designated as the Arbitration Commission of South Korea because the KCAB is the only authorized institution in South Korea, statutorily empowered to settle any kind of commercial disputes at home and abroad.

The Drafting of Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea is to be the basis of and important to the South-North Commercial Arbitration Committee. Therefore we should study and review carefully the drafting of Commercial Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea. First of all, it's probable that the drafting of Commercial Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee in South Korea should be written by the Commercial Arbitration Committee of South Korea and Korean arbitral body after these organizations are established and appointed. Second, it's probable that the Commercial Arbitration Committee of South Korea and the arbitral body in South Korea should be composed of private sector, not government officer mainly. Third, it's not recommendable that we make the ICSID intervene in appointment of arbitrator(s) of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea when it's not agreed with between the South Korea and the North Korea. Forth, it's not recommendable that we, the South Korea write the only one South Korean draft of the Arbitration Rule of the Commercial Arbitration Committee of the South-North Korea.

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.

In these days, arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards？ The decision in Sawtelle, adopting a separate ground for review of punitive damages awards, is one that signals a significant change in the field of arbitration. This article addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing. It would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system. Compared to American practices, there could be many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be a future assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us. This article analyzed predispute arbitration agreements and agreements to arbitrate after a dispute has already arisen.

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

Recently in Korea, franchise system has been specially used in the distribution industry. However, it also brought up many problems caused by various issues between franchisor and franchisee. The purpose of this article is to review recent trend of the franchise transaction contracts and resolution of the disputes in Korea. And to expand to use of ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) system as a practical dispute settlement procedure including mediation and arbitration. Arbitration means a procedure to settle any dispute in private laws, not by the adjudication of a court, but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators, as agreed by the parties. Arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for either party to a dispute to commence arbitral proceeding and may be in the form of a separate agreement or in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract and shall be in writing.

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

The construction arbitration field has developed considerably since the latter half of the 1990s. Through analysis of construction arbitration cases taken up by KCAB, this paper intends to show the present condition and the improvement direction of construction arbitration in Korea. The number of construction arbitration cases filed at KCAB has been increasing rapidly after 1997, but recently the rate of increase has tended to decline. From 2000 to 2003 the number of arbitration cases increased 23％ each year, on average, but in 2003 the increase was only 7.6％. In the very beginning, public construction claims made up the majority of all construction cases, however, civil construction claims are increasing gradually. The arbitration amount in the construction field is very high, owing to public construction claims. For example, the arbitration amount per case was 5 billion won, on average,. in the public construction field. It is shown that the claimants of arbitration are mostly constructors and the main reasons for making claims are to demand payment for construction and payment for additional work. KCAB investigated the performance status of arbitration awards. The voluntary performance rate for awards in construction arbitration is nearly 80％ and in 11％, a suit was filed to appeal the arbitration award. In spite of the development of construction arbitration, some improvements are requested. There have been arguments about the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreement in the General Terms of Construction Contract. This has caused a decrease in arbitration cases, so improvements in this dispute settlement clause need to be made. Enforcement of arbitration awards is granted by the judgment of a court. Resulting from this, appeals for arbitration awards are not allowed, however, up to three appeals for the enforcement of awards are allowed in court. As such, the enforcement system for arbitration awards needs to be improved and simplified.

This paper is about a case on the arbitration of disputes between the parties of charter party. 'B' vessel owner on the original charter party first made a charter party with 'L' cargo owner on the original charter party. Then, 'B' entered into another charter party with 'D' vessel owner, who will actually take charge of carriage of the cargoes which is described on the original charter party. Therefore, 'B' is a carrier of cargoes of 'L' and 'D' is a carrier of cargoes of 'B', according to the contracts. The cargoes of 'B' is cargoes of 'L', by nature. In these circumstances, damages to the cargoes occurred in the transit by the vessel of 'D'. Who should take the responsibility for the damage of cargoes? Who must be liable for those, 'B' or 'D'？. According to the original charter party, 'L' signed 'as Charterers' and 'B' was the counterpart of 'L'. But 'B' signed as 'for and on behalf of 'B',' without 'as Owners'. Tribunal of arbitration award that 'B' should take the responsibility for the damage to the cargoes, because 'B' is the vessel owner. Although 'B' is a contract carrier, 'B' must bear the liability of transport of the cargoes. The counterpart of charterer, 'L' is 'B' who is presumed to be the vessel owner by the original charter party. 'D', actual carrier is not the privy of 'L', cargo owner. This case teach us that signature on the contract is the matter of great importance.