• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2000

Neben der staatlichen Gerichtsbarkeit gibt es eine gesetzlich legitimierte Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit durch Privatpersonen nach dem Schiedsverfahrensrecht. Diese Institution entwickelte sich zwar als $\ddot{U}bergangsstufe$ von der Selbsthilfe zur staatlichen Gerichtsbarkeit und aber erlangt zur Zeit mit dem Wirtschaftswachstum, vor allem mit der Verschmelzung des internationalen Handels eine hervorragende Stellung im Justizsystem. $F\ddot{u}r$ die weitere Entwicklung der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist die $Unterst\ddot{u}tzung$ und Kontrolle des staatlichen Gerichts von großer Bedeutung. In der vorliegenden Arbeit handelt es sich $haupts\ddot{a}chlich$ um die Rolle und Grenze des Gerichts in der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Dabei ist die Rolle des Gerichts in 3 Teilen geteilt untersucht, und zwar die aktive, die passive und die kontrollierende Rolle des Gerichts. Unter der ersten $geh\ddot{o}ren$ das Eingreifen des Gerichts in das Schiedsverfahren, z.B. bei der Bestellung und Ablehnung des Schiedsrichters und bei der Frage $\ddot{u}ber$ die Bedendigung des Schiedsrichteramtes und die einstweiligen Maßnahmen des Gerichts sowie die $Unterst\ddot{u}tzung$ des Gerichts bei der Beweisaufnahme. Weil das Schiedsgericht keine Zwangsgewalt besitzt, ist die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in bestimmten $F\ddot{a}llen$ auf die aktive Mitwirkung des Gerichts stark angewiesen. Die Rolle des Gerichts in der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist aber durch die Entscheidungsbefugnis des Schiedsgerichts $\ddot{u}ber$ die eigene $Zust\ddot{a}ndigkeit$ und $\ddot{u}ber$ die $G\ddot{u}ltigkeit$ der Schiedsvereinbarung(sog. Kompentz-Kompetenz) und durch den einstweiligen Rechtsschutz durch das Schiedsgericht $eingeschr\ddot{a}nkt$. Hier $beschr\ddot{a}nkt$ sich das Gericht auf die passive Rolle. Die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist außerdem der Kontrolle durch das staatliche Gericht zu unterziehen, sei es durch die Aufhebungsklage oder sei es durch die Entscheidung $\ddot{u}ber$ die Vollstreckung des Schiedsspruchs. Besonders im $Vollstreckbarerkl\ddot{a}rungsverfahren$ hat das ordentliche Gericht eine umfangreiche $\ddot{U}berpr\ddot{u}fungsm\ddot{o}glichkeit$ des Schiedsspruchs. Einerseits soll die Stellung der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit nicht durch die Mitwirkung und Kontrolle des staatlichen Gerichts entwertet werden, andererseits ist es aber Aufgabe des Staates, die Richtigkeit der schiedsgerichtlichen Entscheidung zu garantieren. In der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist auch das Rechtsstaatsprinzip aufrechterhalten zu bleiben. Abschließend ist festzustellen, daß die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ohne Mitwirkung des staatlichen Gerichts nicht auskommt, die Rolle des Gerichts aber auf das erforderliche Maß $beschr\ddot{a}nkt$ sein sollte.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

• Therapeutic Science for Rehabilitation
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.77-87
• /
• 2016

Objective : The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of task-oriented approach based on upper limb coordinated movement on the ability of the Korean handwriting in children with developmental coordination disorder(DCD). Methods/Design : This randomized controlled trial designed as a pre-/post- test will compare the effectiveness of task-oriented approach and process-oriented approach on handwriting performance for children with DCD aged 5 to 10. These interventions consist of 10 training sessions and 4 assessment sessions over 7weeks. Children will be measured regard to handwriting legibility, speed and pre-handwriting skills including upper limb movement skills, visual perception and visual motor coordination. Conclusion : This is the first attempt to investigate effects of a task-oriented approach in children with DCD. The significance of this study is to provide the clinical evidences to apply the task-oriented approach improves the children's handwriting performance. Furthermore it will also present a more effective intervention for handwriting by figuring out each approach's impact on the improvement of pre-handwriting skills.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.139-168
• /
• 2016

Two alternative dispute resolutions for medical dispute have been operated under the States of German Medical Associations. The first is the medical mediation committee of North german area, the other is the advisory committee on medical errors in North-Rhine area. The former has focused on the mediation itself, the latter commission has focused on the expert review itself whether the physician has maintained reasonable care in diagnosis and treatment. Even though these organizations have maintained under the medical associations, to maintain the neutrality on legal and medical decision, the North German mediation committee is composed of a lawyer and a medicine doctor respectively and North-Rhine advisory committee has a lawyer chair person and four medicine doctors. The main difference of Korean Medical Dispute Mediation Agency in respect from the german system is that expert review is subordinated to the mediation process. The neutrality of expert review is suspected from the medicine doctors. The neytrality and the efficiency should be improved to treat the medical disputes. To do so, lawyer and medicine doctor work together in mediation process and lawyer should manage the expert review process but not involved. Mediation process and expert review should be checked and balanced, and they could be developed as a separated process itself.

• Informatization Policy
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.3-18
• /
• 2012

Constitutional issue of economic order has fiercely been disputed around the world and through the ages. In Korea, there also has been endless argument on to what extent the government should intervene in the economy through regulation. Article 119 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea has its basis on the principle of free market economy, exceptionally allowing the government to intervene and coordinate in certain situations. The Constitution empowers the government with the authority of regulation and coordination to execute the Constitutional value of guaranteeing and securing fundamental human rights. Therefore, the government, as a fair and just mediator, should perform its mission to democratize the economy as well as secure market freedom and creative initiative.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.169-208
• /
• 2016

"Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractive and Mediation of Medical Disputes)" has been enacted to solve medical dispute. In addition, mediation and arbitration procedures have started since April 8th, 2012 from the Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. The average initiation rate of mediation for the past three years turned out to be 43%. Hereupon, Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency has created a solution for automatic initiation if relevant to particular conditions to improve initiation rate of mediation procedures and passed it through the Assembly plenary session in May, 2016 and promulgated on the 30th of the same month. However, even if mediation procedure initiation rate is increased, there is no guarantee for mediation establishment rate to be improved according to current law. If Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency intends to increase aforementioned value, automatic initiation is not the only solution. Instead, it seems to be a major assignment to identify fundamental reasons for why major health care facilities have not participated in it and to restore reliability on them. In addition, among crimes specified on the Article 268 of Criminal Act in the Article $51^*$ of "Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractive and Mediation of Medical Disputes)", revision must be made so that the clause of clue and death by occupational or gross negligence is applied. Furthremore, it is suggested to supplement previously insufficient policies with the operation so that mediation procedures created by Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency are stably settled in the perspective of medical institutions including the establishment of new conditions for medical institutions founders or health and medical service personnel to claim the proxy payment for damage.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.223-258
• /
• 2013

1967 Outer Space Treaty(Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; OST) is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. OST is based on the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space announced by UNGA resolution. As of May 2013, 102 countries are states parties to OST, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification. OST explicitly claimed that the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies are the province of all mankind. Art. II of OST states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means", thereby establishing res extra commercium in outer space like high seas. However 1979 Moon Agreement stipulates that "the moon and its natural resources are the Common Heritage of Mankind(CHM)." Because of the number of the parties to the Moon Agreement(13 parties) it does not affect OST. OST also established its specific treaties as a complementary means such as 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention. OST bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications. However OST does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. China and Russia submitted Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT) on the Conference on Disarmament in 2008. USA disregarded PPWT on the ground that there are no arms race in outer space. OST does not have some articles in relation to current problems such as space debris, mechanisms of the settlement of dispute arising from state activities in outer space in specific way. COPUOS established "UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" based on "IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" and ILA proposed "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris" for space debris problems and Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) established "Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities" and ILA proposed "1998 Taipei Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Dispute" for the settlement of dispute problems. Although OST has shortcomings in some articles, it is very meaningful in international law in considering the establishment of basic principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. OST established the principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space as customary law and jus cogens in international law as follows; the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The principles of global public interest in outer space imposes international obligations erga omnes applicable to all States. This principles find significant support in legal norms dealing with following points: space activities as the "province of all mankind"; obligation to cooperate; astronauts as envoys of mankind; avoidance of harmful contamination; space activities by States, private entities and intergovernmental organisations; absolute liability for damage cauesd by certain space objects; prohibition of weapons in space and militarization of the celestial bodies; duty of openness and transparency; universal application of the international space regime.