• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2016

Lately each country tends to provide neutrality and ease of enforcement in order to settle disputes related to international trade through commercial arbitration. In order to expand the use of arbitration systems, most countries accept arbitration agreements as an effective tool agreed between parties that express their intent to settle disputes by the arbitration. It is applied equally to selective arbitration agreements and parties can select either arbitration or lawsuit to settle disputes based on the contract intent for selective arbitration agreements. However, China does not admit the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreements. Chinese courts regard selective arbitration agreements as not valid because the contract of a selective arbitration agreement between parties is not a definite expression to only use the arbitration and there is no exclusion of court jurisdiction. Therefore, the study attempts to consider effective conditions for selective arbitration agreements in the Chinese arbitration act and other relevant regulations, and also verifies the judgment by Chinese courts on relevant disputes. As a result, the study explores some problems and implications of Chinese selective arbitration agreements and suggests some precautions in case Korean companies pursue selective arbitration agreements with Chinese enterprises and investors.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.193-208
• /
• 2018

"중재제도를 보완하고 중재의 공신력을 향상하며" 국제상사중재의 현대화 및 국제화를 강화하는 것은 새로운 시기에서 중국 중재사업의 발전방향이자 ""일대일로" 국제상사분쟁 해결시스템 및 기관의 설립에 관한 의견"의 필연적 요구이다. 다원적 분쟁해결시스템의 중요한 구성부분으로서, 국제상사중재는 독보적인 편의성, 종국성, 전문성 및 결과집행의 용이성 등 여러 장점으로 인해 상사거래에서 이를 선택하는 상사주체들이 점점 많아지고 있다. 유효한 중재합의는 중재절차 개시의 전제이지만 국제상사중재안건 중에서 서로 다른 국가 또는 지역의 분쟁주체들은 종종 각기 다른 국적으로 인하여 중재안건의 법률적용이 다르게 됨에 따라 법률효과가 크게 달라지는 경우를 직면하게 된다. 이런 경우, 중재분쟁의 효과적인 해결은 보증하기 어렵다. 본 논고는 중재합의의 효력문제를 연구대상으로 하고 중국 국제상사중재합의의 법률적용문제에서 출발하여 중국 국제상사중재합의와 관련한 법률규정과 사법실무를 결합하여 지금 중국 국제상사중재합의의 효력에 대한 인정에서 존재하고 있는 문제점들을 분석하고 상응한 건의를 제기함으로서 중국 중재법의 개정과 보완에 합리적이고 가능한 방향을 제시하고자 한다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

This article discusses the validity of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that provides arbitration as one of several dispute resolution methods. The Supreme Court has held selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that is conditional invalidity since the judgement of 2003Da318 decided on Aug. 22, 2003: In the following judgements of 2004Da42166 decided on Nov. 11, 2004 and 2005Da12452 decided on May 27, 2005, the Court stated that the selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that stipulates to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation would be valid as an effective arbitration agreement only if a party elects and proceeds an arbitration proceeding and another party responses to the arbitration proceeding without any objection. The definition of arbitration agreement, the formation of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement, the summary of relative judgements and academic theories will be reviewed in order to examine the appropriateness of the series of judgements of the Supreme Court. Based on such reviews, this article will investigate the adequacy of the Supreme Court judgements from the perspectives of i) the principle of party autonomy, ii) the structure of dispute resolution methods, iii) legal provisions of Arbitration Act, iv) legal stability, and v) the policy to revitalize the use of arbitration. At conclusion, this article will suggest the change of precedents of the Supreme Court's judgements with regard to the selective arbitral agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.147-178
• /
• 2005

Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain dispute which have arisen or which may arise between them. Arbitration agreement is an important factor to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement and it should be the object of examination before anything else to judge the existence of the mutual arbitration agreement. Recently the Supreme Court seemed to make negative position about validity of selective arbitration agreement. However theoretically and scientifically selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Examine selective arbitration agreement throughly according to the autonomy of the parties rules, wide jurisdiction rules of interpretation, principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, and moses cone presumption rule of interpretation, selective arbitration agreement is a valid arbitration agreement. Also analyze precedents in accordance with validity of selective from all angles which are voluntary agreement of the parties, agreement in writing, principle of private autonomy, comparative study of domestic and foreign precedents and mutual relation of arbitration and trial, selective arbitration agreement based on principle of private by the parties is considered a valid arbitration agreement. Courts should actively accept selective arbitration agreement as a valid arbitration agreement to make foreign companies prefer arbitration in Korea and in oder for arbitration to be widely used in disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2012

No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2019

A franchise business is a business in which the owners, or "franchisors," sell the rights to their business logo, name, and model to third party retail outlets, owned by independent, third party operators, called "franchisees." There are a number of features in franchising or terms in franchise agreements that may lead to disputes between franchisors and franchisees. These disputes may arise because of underlying risks in the franchise relationship, franchise agreement, or conduct of the parties. In this case, ADR is an effective way to resolve disputes in a quicker and often less costly way than having to go to court. If an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, then arbitration becomes the next step to resolving the differences. Whereas mediation is non-binding and focused on facilitating the parties to find a resolution that is acceptable to both, arbitration is binding and may result in a decision that is not acceptable to one of the parties. These situations can be resolved through experienced arbitration as arbitration allows franchisees to settle matters promptly and outside of the public eye. In addition, franchise dispute arbitration is usually less costly than going to traditional court. Considering all of these, reaching an agreement will also have typical clauses that address the issue of dispute resolution. It is again a more efficient process than going through the legal process and courts and is often less costly. By going through arbitration, the parties agree to give up their rights to pursue the dispute in the courts. However, there is a problem that the arbitration prior to the agreement and under the terms would be contrary to the restriction of jurisdiction under the "ACT ON THE REGULATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.585-612
• /
• 2004

Die vorliegende Arbeit bezieht sich auf die Probleme, ob eine Vereinbarung, in der einer der Parteien oder den beiden ein Wahlrecht zwischen ordentlichem Gericht und Schiedsgericht eingeraumt ist, als eine wirksame Schiedsvereinbarung anzusehen ist, wem das Wahlrecht zuzustehen ist und wie das Wahlrecht auszuuben ist. Im Hinblick auf diese Problematik stehen nicht nur in der Literatur sondern auch in der Praxis die Meinungen einander kontrar gegenuber. Die Wirksamkeit einer wahlweisen Vereinbarung zwischen Schiedsund Staatsgericht ergibt sich vor allem aus dem Wesen der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, dem allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrecht i.V.m. Vertragsfreiheit und nicht zuletzt dem effektiven Rechtsschutz. Weil es fur das schiedsgerichtliche Verfahren wesentlich ist, dass es an die Stelle des sonst offenstehenden Verfahrens vor den Staatsgerichten tritt und nach dem Erlass des Schiedsspruchs die Beschreitung des ordentlichen Rechtswegs auszuschliessen ist, ist es erforderlich, den Parteien die Erledigung des Rechtsstreits auf verschiedene Weise zu gewahrleisten. Das tragt auch zum effektiven Rechtsschutz der Parteien bei. Ausserdem ist es nicht einzusehen, warum es rechtlich nicht moglich sein sollte, die Vertragsschliessenden sich gegenseitig das Wahlrecht zwischen Schiedsgericht und Staatsgericht einzuraumen. Die Vertragsfreiheit bzw. das allgemeine Personlichkeitsrecht gilt auch fur Schiedsvertrage. Wenn die Parteiautonomie im Privatrecht ihren Sinn behalten sollte, ist es notwendig, den Parteiwillen in dem wortlichen Ausdruck und in seinem Sinngehalt bestehen zu lassen. Damit steht fest, dass gegen die Einraumung eines Wahlrechts zwischen staatlichem Gericht und Schiedsgericht grundsatzlich keine Bedenken bestehen. Das Hauptproblem der wahlweisen Vereinbarung zwischen Schiedsund Staatsgericht liegt nicht in ihrer Wirksamkeit, vielmehr in den einzelnen Problemen hinsichtlich des Wahlrechts, namlich das Subjekt, die Art und Weise der Ausubung des Wahlrechts usw. Das Wahlrecht kann aufgrund der Parteivereinbarung nur einer Partei vorbehalten bleiben oder beiden eingeraumt werden. Anders als die Ansicht des hochsten Gerichtshofes ist von der Bindung der Partei an die Ausubung des Wahlrechts auszugehen, wenn die andere yon dem Wahlrecht Gebrauch macht. In bezug auf die Bindung bedarf es im Prinzip keiner erganzenden Vereinbarung, denn mit dem Verneinen dieser Bindung wurde zugleich das Wahlrecht selbst geleugnet. Ein Verbrauch des Wahlrechts ist anzunehmen, sobald die Klage vor dem staatlichen Gericht erhoben oder das Schiedsverfahren eingeleitet wurde. Steht das Wahlrecht nur einer Partei zu, ist es entsprechend §381 KBGB Frist zu setzen, nach deren fruchtlosem Ablauf das Wahlrecht ubergeht.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Sensory Integration
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.13-23
• /
• 2014

Objective : This study was to perform the education of the ASI$^{(R)}$ intervention for six occupational therapists and to know the delivery of ASI$^{(R)}$ core principle through a self-assessment, a peer-assessment, an expert-assessment. Methods : The study performed from November 2013 to June 2014 for six occupational therapists without completion of the education of ASI$^{(R)}$ intervention. The participants were educated about the ASI$^{(R)}$ intervention during 8 weeks and took and assessed films before and after education. The assessment was the self-assessment, the peer-assessment, the expert-assessment and the data of assessment was analyzed by Mann-Whitney and ICC. Results : The result of process factors before and after education according to methods of assessment, the self-assessment was significant in 'self-regulation,' 'collaboration,' 'ensures success,' 'play,' 'alliance,' and 'total item'. The peer-assessment was significant in all item exception 'safety'. The expert-assessment was significant in all items exception 'sensory opportunities'. The results of self-assessment and expert-assessment before and after the education of ASI$^{(R)}$ intervention were significant in 'safety'. Conclusion : The results of this study provide to need the education of ASI$^{(R)}$ intervention for accuracy sensory integrative intervention. The occupational therapists need to check the style of intervention.