As we know, D-terms which are constituted with DAF delivered the goods in a border place, DES delivered the goods on board a vessel at a vessel specified port on the buyer's side, DEQ delivered the goods on the quay on the buyer's side as the specified place, DDU and DDP delivered the good at the stipulated place at the agreed place or point, mean arrival contracts. DAF is designed mainly for railway carriage, DES and DEQ are designed mainly for vessel shipment, DDU and DDP are designed mainly for multimodal transportation. In spite of their original purpose of revision. They have in themselves many problems on notable points on application in practice. Therefore, in order to magnify their use, through revision of Incoterms, DAF is restricted to railway carriage, DES and DEQ are restricted to be used only for charter shipments. Particularly transport documents which seller should supply the buyer with under DDU and DDP are documents for ownership and possession rights to the goods loaded when executed in negotiable form like as CIF.

This study analyzes some important implications for the forthcoming revision of eUCP through the methodology of expected utility maximization theory. The overall results are as follows. First, beneficiary with an initial wealth has a risk-averse utility in traditional letter of credit transaction, and he would be more risk-averse in eUCP transaction. Secondly, the beneficiary who has risk-averse utility will pay for the risk premium to reduce the risk of corruption of an electronic record by means of cost of loss reduction activities. Thirdly, the cost of loss reduction activities is represented by a convex cost function, Fourthly, a risk averse beneficiary pursues loss reducing activities to the point where the expected marginal product of loss reduction is less than its marginal cost. Fifthly, a more risk-averse eUCP beneficiary will always select a higher level of loss reduction as long as the effectiveness of loss reduction is certain. Sixthly, when the effectiveness of loss reduction is uncertain, the more risk-averse eUCP beneficiary does not necessarily choose a higher level of loss reducing activities. Finally, it would be more reasonable that eUCP Article 11 should protect eUCP beneficiary who pursues a higher level of loss reducing activities.

UCP 600 approved at the Banking Commission Meeting of ICC at the end of October, 2006 comes into effect from July 1, 2007. The main revision of the UCP 600 concerning the sea transport document are as follows. First, if the bill of lading contains an on-board-notation, with the date of shipment, the date stated in the on-board-notation will be deemed the date of shipment. Secondly, phrases "on its face" and "otherwise authenticated" should be eliminated. Thirdly, when an agent signs for or signs on behalf of the master, there is no longer a need for the name of master to be quoted. Fourthly, the terminology "loading on-board or shipped on a named vessel" is changed to "shipped on-board a named vessel." Fifthly, phrases "the rejection of the documents transported only by sail" is removed. Finally, new rule in UCP is the signing of a charter party bill of lading by the charterer or a named agent on behalf of the charterer. My assessment of the revision in UCP 600 is as follows: Because a freight forwarder transport document is a weaker form than a liner bill of lading as collateral, banks may need a secure measure as to protect themselves from such a weak collateral effect. we recognize that Such a weak collateral effect stemmed from the elimination of rules in UCP 500 article 30, and the admission of transport documents issued by the freight forwarder as long as any one besides carrier, shipper, and charterer satisfies the requirements of transport document clauses in UCP 600. Finally, I hope the Commentary on UCP 600 will serve to explain the ambiguities remaining in the new rules.

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

The objective of this study is to find out whether Korean companies which are doing a lot of commercial transactions with Indian companies can consider appointing ICA as a trustworthy institution and using ICA arbitration rules as a governing arbitration rule, when a dispute between Korean companies and Indian companies occurs. Up to now, in the case of dispute with Indian companies, Korean companies are hesitant to utilize ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a alternative dispute resolution, owing to lack of understanding on its rules. But, it is obvious that Korean companies which come to have better knowledge on ICA and its rules may consider more positively using ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a dispute resolution rather than using other arbitration institutions like ICC and KCAB etc. in the case of disputes with Indian companies because ICA arbitration rules are very objective and similar to other arbitration rules like ICC rules as well as KCAB(Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) international arbitration rules which are frequently being used by Korean companies and also have other several advantages like cheaper cost of arbitration and fast track arbitration procedures. In conclusion, ICA and its rules can also be recommended as a public-trustworthy arbitration option if Korean companies want to resolve some dispute cases with Indian companies.

This study clarified a study of relationship of strategic alliance structure factor, partner selection criteria and performance awareness on the container liners alliance. In order to obtain such objective of study existing literature variables suitable to the container liner were perused and extracted. Research models for research development and three study hypothesis were set out and scope of investigation and samples were chosen. The research hypothesis are followings. H1: The factors of strategic alliance motivation influence the performance awareness. H2: The strategic alliance structure factors influence the performance awareness. H3: The factors of partner selection criteria influence the performance awareness. In the result of the empirical study, the hypothesis 1, hypothesis 2 were supported completely and hypothesis 3 was partially supported.

Cross-border supply chains undergone complexity in the global trade process, unpredictability and continually evolving regulations and information requirements. Under these circumstances, longer lead time inhibiting quick response to market demands, unanticipated supply chain costs eroding product cost savings, compliance and documentation errors causing delays and fines are challenging global trade companies when they execute global business. These problems are mainly caused by unautomated, unintegrated process which lead to longer and more unpredictable lead times, slower cash flow, cost overruns, and ultimately lower profits and less satisfied customers. Complex and unpredictable global trade environment requires global trade companies of global trade management functions to automate and control this complex environment for driving out cost, time and risk from their business. Global trade management allows cost savings, supply chain efficiencies and improved compliance through improving global supply chain visibility, facilitating cash flow by supply chain financing, enhancing supply chain security and risk management.

This paper focused on analyzing the effect against the Chinese Economy of Korea-China FTA and the trend of China-launching FTAs. And then this paper intended to deduce policy implications against the negotiations of Korea-China FTA. The points that Korea should consider in the process of the research and negotiations of Korea-China FTA are as follows: First, it is necessary that Korea should negotiate with China only in terms of the economic sector, excluding non-economic sectors which includes politics, national securities and so on. Second, Korea should put on the lists the every possible sectors that Korea has comparative advantages in. It is essential that the sectors include services in trade, TRIPs, ect. Third, the Korean government should put investment arrangements on the negotiating lists and ask China to afford a special favor to Korean investment In China. Forth, the Korean government should set the level of its tariff, considering the nation's trade deficit that Korea-China FTA will bing about.