On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

This paper examines various legal issues related to the assignment of monetary rights under UNIDROIT Principles. To this end, this paper examines the concept and the effects of the assignment of rights, the related legal structure and notice to the obligor, and some uses in practice (II). Then, as a matter of law in the context of the assignment of monetary rights under UNIDROIT Principles, this paper examines what may happen to the legal relationship between the parties and what practical considerations need to be taken by them when the obligor has legal defenses against the assignor, when successive assignments are made by the assignor, when the obligor exercises against the assignee its right of set-off before receiving the notice of assignment, when the assigned right does not exist at the time of the assignment, when any payment is received from the obligor before the notice of assignment is given, and finally when the obligor becomes insolvent or refuses to pay.

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Mediation Convention) results in new challenges to the area of international dispute resolution by providing the enforcement regime for mediated settlement agreements, which have not been admitted as enforceable in some civil law countries, including Korea and Japan. Japan has struggled to promote international arbitration and international mediation, and such efforts were accelerated by the adoption of the Singapore Mediation Convention in 2018. In order to standardize arbitration proceedings and promote the practice of international arbitration, Japan produced two noticeable results: the new JCAA Arbitration Rules and the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan. In addition to that Expedited arbitration procedure and Interactive Arbitration Rules of JCAA present the new possibility of international arbitration procedure for civil law practitioners, the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan suggests significant implications to Korea for its manifest provisions regarding enforcement requirements and proceedings and its protection of Access to Justice for foreign law practitioners.

When human rights disputes are related to the cross-border investments treaties, the investment arbitral tribunals are confronted with the question of how to adjudicate connected human rights violations. The traditional structure restricts arbitration proceedings to the parties named within an investment treaty, i.e., Investor-Claimant and State-Respondent. If human rights issues occur, States must act as proxies for citizens with human rights claims. This effectively excludes individuals or groups with human rights concerns and contradicts the premise of international human rights law that seeks to empower human rights-holders to pursue claims directly and on an international stage. The methods for intorducing human rights issues in the context of investment arbitration proceedings are suggested as follows: First, human rights arguments can be introduced into ISDS by the usual initiator of investment disputes: the investor as the complainant. Especially, if the jurisdictional and applicable law clauses of the respective international investment agreements are sufficiently broad to include human rights violations, adjudicating a pure human rights claim could be possible. Second, the host state may rely on human rights argumentation as a respondent of an investor claim. Human rights have played a role as a justification for state measures undertaken to comply with human rights laws. Third, third party interventions by NGOs and civil society groups as amici curiae may act as advocates for affected populations or communities in response to the reluctance of governments to introduce their own human rights duties into the investment dispute. Finally, arbitrators have also referred to human rights ex officio, i.e., without having a dispute party referring to the specific argument. This was mainly the case in the context of determining the scope of property rights and the existence of an expropriation. As all U.N. member states have human rights obligations, international investment laws must be presumed to be in conformity with the relevant human rights obligations.

This article examines the Practical Suggestions for Promoting of Virtual Hearings in International Arbitration. COVID-19 had an prompt and meaningful impact on the practice of international arbitration. Nevertheless arbitral institutions, arbitral tribunals, and other participants learned quickly how to deal with this new challenge. The use of virtual or online hearings has been gaining popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Either with the help of arbitral institutions or by themselves, the parties realized that the only way to safeguard a hearing at all was to run it virtually. In fact, hearings by video conference or other technical means seemed to be the magic solution. One of the leading arbitration institutions, i.e. the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris has amended its Arbitration Rules to accept the subjects of recent international arbitration practice. Other arbitral institutions have similarly amended their respective rules. Many recent and adaptable institutional arbitration rules, either expressly or implicitly, allow for hearings to be conducted remotely. The trend has already been set by the leading institutions as ICC, LCIA, ICSID, SCC SIAC, and many more will follow. In short, enthusiasts of virtual hearings even believe that virtual hearings are "the new normal".

Religion has a very close relationship with our everyday lives. In particular, religion maintains an absolute and ultimate value system and is deeply associated with all sectors of society such as politics, economy, thought, arts, culture, and science. The original meaning of religion in Buddhism means the teachings that become fundamentals. There are numerous religions around the world, and each religion has its own object of faith, different system, and unique rites and lifestyles. Therefore, evaluating or denouncing other regions based on the doctrines or conventions of a specific religion can lead to conflicts and disputes. The Buddhist Vinaya Pitaka related to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a method regarding the operation of a community. Vinaya Pitaka contains Buddha's teachings about individual and organizational ethics and on community life and activities. It is the Buddhist dispute resolution (BDR) of the Vinayata Pitaka that contains knowledge on howto remedy disputes among the four types of disputes that can occur. Vinaya Pitaka contains the principles and systems of BDR, and it is sufficient background for succeeding in the development of harmony today. The messages of laws, ethics, and Buddhist teachings are clear in these characteristics. The systems, progress, and procedures for various rites, events, and disputes as well as for everyday life, etc. display a rational operating system through karma. In particular, when disputes occur, the cause of the dispute is resolved as much as possible through transparent fairness and being unanimous using the seven remedies for disputes. Buddhist priests pursue private autonomy of ADR through karma, repentance, acceptance, etc. to maintain and continue the integrated functions of Buddhist priest harmony.