• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.239-257
• /
• 2011

This article examines the requirements of Article 37 of the ICDR International Arbitration Rules and issues that could arise if a party petitions a U.S. Federal Court to enforce an emergency arbitrator's Article 37 decision to grant pre-arbitration provisional relief. On May 1, 2006, ICDR introduced a new procedure for the granting of emergency arbitral relief under its ICDR Rules. The procedure enables a party to apply for emergency interim relief before the appointment of an arbitrator or tribunal to adjudicate the merits of the dispute. Instead, the application for emergency relief is considered by an emergency arbitrator appointed by the ICDR. In short, the ICDR has quickly appointed emergency arbitrator and resolved a challenge to an appointment within 36 hours. In addition, the emergency decisions have been issued within just a couple of weeks. In particular, we looked at what would happen after Article 37 emergency relief is granted. Based on my examination of U.S. cases on the enforceability of interim awards and orders, We conclude that U.S. courts would enforce Article 37 interim measures, whether they are characterized by the emergency arbitrator as an interim order or award. Where the situation warrants, arbitration executives should embrace and use emergency relief procedure of ICDR Rules.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

The study attempts to verify the case related to the notice of payment refusal by issuing bank regarding discrepancy in transport document under L/C(Letter of Credit) transaction. Considering the high portion of trade between Korea and China, Korean companies and banks in L/C transaction should be careful about many unpredictable situations. The case of this study is that Chinese seller(beneficiary) initiated a civil suit against Industrial Bank of Korea to Chinese court and Chinese courts in the first and second trials judged that the notice of payment refusal by Industrial bank of Korea doesn't satisfy Article 16, (c) (ii) (iii) in UCP 600. However, Industrial Bank of Korea implements the judgement even though the judgement is highly biased to Chinese seller. Considering the judgement by Chinese courts, the study suggests some countermeasures to Korean companies and banks which opened L/C. First, the issuing bank should describe the contents of discrepancy specifically based on Article 16, (c) in UCP 600. Second, it is necessary to insert a clause regarding governing law in the L/C contract like sales contract. Third, considering the biased judgement by Chinese court and difficulty in execution of foreign judgement in China, it is recommended to using arbitration as a method of dispute resolution such as ICLOCA and DOCDEX Rules which are international system operated by international instruments because it has legal effects to parties in L/C contracts if the issuing bank inserts arbitration clause in L/C.