• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

국제상사중재는 <국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약>을 적용하는 중요한 영역이고 본 협약이 국제 통일법적인 역할을 발휘하는데 중요한 지원을 제공하고 있습니다. 중국국제 경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)는 협약을 가장 많이 적용하여 중재사건을 해결하는 중재위원회이다. 중재재판소는 체약국 법원과 마찬가지로 협약내용을 정확하게 이해하고 정확하게 적용함으로써 사건재판의 질을 제고하고 판결의 공신력을 강화한다. 하지만 중재재판소의 민간성과 독립성으로 인하여 재판소가 협약을 적용하는 법률기초는 소재국 국내 중재법, 중재절차 및 국제중재관례이고, 소재국이 협약을 이행함에 있어서의 국제조약의무가 아니다. 협약과 중국 계약법은 CIETAC 중재재판소가 주요하게 적용하는 법률이다. 중국 계약법 규정에는 협약 제75조, 76조의 내용에 해당하는 차액배상제도가 존재하지 않기 때문에, 판사와 중재재판소는 손해배상금을 확정함에 있어서 보다 많은 자유재량권을 가지므로 협약을 적용하는 것과 중국 계약법을 적용하는 것은 당사자에게 서로 다른 영향을 일으킨다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.109-148
• /
• 1991

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.77-97
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been adjudicating on sports-related disputes since 1984. CAS can be regarded as world supreme court for sports settling down about 4200 cases including doping issues. Doping disputes are generally processed by CAS Appeals division and Anti-Doping Division. An appeal against the decision by sports-related bodies may be filed with CAS Appeals Division. Doping issues concerning Olympic games are on Anti-Doping Division, introduced from 2016 Olympic games and invested with complete authority by IOC. The Award of Maria Sharapova finds a player is responsible if found to have committed any Anti-Doping Rule Violation regardless of his/her intention or fault. It offers detailed jurisprudence on imposing such a specific period of ineligibility in view of the totality of the circumstances. The award of Xinyi Chen also confirms the Strict Liability Rule on anti-doping disputes. The player appealed there could be either accidental contamination of drinks, or doping laboratories' mistakes that affected the test results. But, all of them were rejected. Though dealing with doping disputes in a timely manner is important for seasonal sports events like Olympic games, it is necessary to prepare the acceptable and fair process for the players in the future.

• 해양환경안전학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 해양환경안전학회 2017년도 공동학술발표회
• /
• pp.141-141
• /
• 2017

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.43-75
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was created to focus on the procedural complexity in the resolution of sports-related disputes, confidentiality, the matter of expenses, and the necessity of prompt settlement in the field of international sports. The CAS had originally launched as one of bodies of International Olympic Committee (IOC), but later it became properly operational as an independent organization to facilitate sports-related disputes when the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which came into force in accordance with the Paris Agreement in 1984 and has acted in place of IOC, took responsibility for the administration and financing of the CAS. The CAS is composed of four divisions, the Ordinary Arbitration Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division, the Ad hoc Division created later in 1996 and the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) established as from 2016 only to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions on an alleged anti-doping rule violation, and two (Sydney and New York) permanent decentralized offices. The head office of the CAS is Lausanne, Switzerland. Since CAS ADD was established, CAS Ad hoc Division has had jurisdiction over the appeal case against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an international Federation or an Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games. Although there are so many virtues of CAS as a resolution authority for sports-related disputes in terms of its organization, arbitration rules and procedures, it is also true that the CAS has not been showing the consistency. The CAS should overcome these issues through much more advanced system and its instant and fair decisions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this study is to present implications by analyzing the Swiss Federal Court's annulment of the arbitration Awards in Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS). As international interest in the sports sector increases, related disputes are also increasing. Therefore, the role of CAS specializing in sports disputes is becoming very important. In particular, the Swiss federal court's annulment of the arbitral awards made by the CAS could contribute significantly to the development of sports arbitration in the future. Looking at the case analyzed in this study, first of all, it is about the partiality of the arbitrator. The court judged that the arbitrator posted and shared racist articles on SNS, which could be sufficiently biased. Next, it is about the uncertainty of the arbitration clause. The arbitral award was finally canceled due to the issue of whether the CAS could make an arbitral award with jurisdiction over a clause that includes both dispute resolution through a sports organization and dispute handling in a national court. As a result of the analysis of this study, in the case of unclear arbitration provisions, it will be necessary to prepare an arbitration agreement. In addition, in the case of unclear arbitration provisions, it will be necessary to prepare a post-arbitration agreement. Finally, in order to revitalize sports arbitration, it will be necessary to train professional arbitrators in Korea, support them to work internationally, and establish specialized arbitration institutions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.23-46
• /
• 2021

Sports disputes have specific characteristics compared to disputes that arise in the field of commerce. One particularity is the judicial system in which the CAS plays a key role as the International Supreme Court for sports-related matters. The CAS Code applies whenever the parties agree to submit a sports-related dispute to the CAS(Art. R27). Once the parties to the arbitration agreement have decided that the CAS Code should govern their proceedings. The parties' autonomy is, however, limited to the provisions of the CAS Code that provide for such a corresponding autonomy. The application of the mandatory rules contained in the CAS Code cannot be excluded. In CAS appeals arbitration proceedings, the Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable sports regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties(Art. R58). In international sports disputes, the uniform application and interpretation of the relevant regulations are essential. Therefore, Art. R58 should be applied as a mandatory rule without any changes. Regulations of the sports organizations are to be qualified as valid rules of law. CAS panels may also apply the so-called lex sportiva to the merits before considering statutory provisions of national jurisdictions. In this way, the specificities in (international) sports disputes can be taken into account without the need to further examine the application of national legal standards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.109-137
• /
• 2023

This paper reviews legal framework, characteristics and main contents of the 'Optional Rules for the Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activity' enacted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 2011. Space activities, which began in the 1950s, are undergoing significant changes according to the international characteristics and development of science and technology. New Space and the space business will be the key factors driving these changes. However, the diversity of disputes caused by New Space space activities and the characteristics of each type of dispute must be considered together. This is because the space business can be maintained and developed by securing the effectiveness of dispute resolution. This paper identifies that the PCA Space Dispute Arbitration Rules have important legislative and policy significance in this respect. Specifically, in this paper, the international space law system, the draft convention of the International Law Association, and the PCA arbitration rules were introduced in an overview of the international dispute settlement system related to space activities. Afterwards, it examines that the systematic structure and some major contents of the PCA Space Dispute Arbitration Rules in detail. Based on this, the paper suggests some points of application of the PCA Arbitration Rules and the legislative policy implications.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.67-89
• /
• 2016

An ADR arbitration system has a necessary value in the sports industry for settlement of disputes. Sports disputes should be resolved independently by enacting internal regulations within the basic principles of national law rather than treated as a civil action. If the dispute is not fair and transparent, it may cause distrust. Because an arbitration system has values such as speed, flexibility of economic decisions, professionalism of arbitrator and confidentiality of arbitration-related information, the efficiency of the arbitration system for conflict resolution has emerged recently. We have to assign sports experts to reactivate sports arbitration commission committees which existed from 2006 to 2009 in Korea. Many countries, such as the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, and Japan, which attain advancement of sports and the International Court of Arbitration establish and run their own sports arbitration agencies. However, Korea disbanded its sports arbitration commission committee for political and economic reasons. In 2012, after their disbanding, athlete Kim Yeon-kyoung came into conflict with Heungkuk Life over terms of free agent acquisition and international transfer certification. Finally they were able to settle those political conflicts. However if there had been related laws in Korea, they could have resolved those problems easily without international disputes. Practically, it would have been almost impossible for Kim Yeon-kyoung to win the dispute. But her problem became an issue after the London Olympics, so she could win. Although it is well for her to take an active role on the international stage, it left much to be desired on account of the intervention of political circles in order to resolve the conflict. If the sports arbitration commission committee in Korea had still been active, it could have come to a peaceful settlement domestically. Therefore we have to reestablish a Korean sports arbitration committee centered around experts of sports law.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

우주법상의 분쟁은 전문적, 기술적 성격을 띠고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 우주개발 기술이 발전된 선진국과 개발도상국가와의 이해관계의 차이가 매우 크다는 점에서 독특한 측면이 있다. 현재의 우주관련 협정들의 분쟁해결조항들을 분석해 보면 국가가 그들의 주권과 충돌하는 문제에 대해서 아직도 불신과 의구심을 드러내고 있다는 사실을 쉽게 간파할 수 있다. 그들은 사법적 판결이나 구속력 있는 중재에 분쟁해결을 의뢰하는 것을 꺼린다. 이러한 규정들은 정치적, 경제적, 사회적 이익과 인구통계학적 특성이 상이한 국가사이의 협상일 때 특히 그러하다. 그렇지만 국가들이 국가주권의 장벽을 걷어낼 필요성이 점점 커지고 있는 오늘날의 정치적, 경제적 그리고 기술적 압력들을 인식하게 되면서 이러한 태도는 서서히 그러나 명백히 변화하고 있다. 우주의 탐사 및 개발과 관련하여 증가하는 분쟁의 해결을 위한 효과적인 제도적 장치를 구축하는 작업은 국제기구나 개별국가뿐만 아니라 각국의 국제법 학자와 국제단체들에게 주어진 범세계적 연구과제라 할 것이다. 전술한 바 있는 1972년의 책임협약도 분쟁해결에 있어서 비교적 정교한 규정내용을 가진 우주관련 조약이긴 하지만 구속력 있는 결정을 확보하는 데는 실패했다. 이 조약의 채택이래로 강제적 관할권과 판정의 이행을 지지하는 압력단체가 출현하기도 했으며 특히 우주분쟁해결을 위한 분야별 국제적 메카니즘이 시급히 마련되어야 한다는 인식이 확산되었다. 이 점에서 1998년의 Taipei에서 채택된 분쟁해결을 위한 ILA의 협약 초안은 독립적인 분야별 우주분쟁해결 제도의 창설 여부에 대한 심도 있는 논의를 위해 의미가 큰 유용한 틀을 제공 하고 있다고 본다. 동 협약초안에 따르면 분쟁당사국 특히 우주선진국들이 구속적인 분쟁해결 절차를 꺼려한다는 사실을 고려하여 우주활동에 관한 분쟁을 선택적으로 해결하도록 할 수 있는 가능한 다양한 방법을 제시하고 있다는 점이 눈에 띈다. 즉, 당사자들은 이 협약을 서면, 비준, 가입할 때 동 협약의 해석이나 적용에 관한 분쟁을 해결하기 위하여 국제우주법재판소, 국제사법재판소 그리고 중재재판소 등 3가지 강제적 절차 중에서 하나 이상을 선택선언 할 수 있도록 하고 있는바 이것은 장차 우주활동에 따른 분쟁해결에 있어 커다란 시사점을 던져주는 것이기도 하다. 이제 국제우주법은 우주활동의 문제점과 복잡성을 조정할 수 있는 특성화된 분쟁해결체제의 요구로 국제우주법의 역사에 있어서 새로운 국면에 처해 있다. 아직은 우주선진국을 중심으로 구속적인 분쟁해결기구 창설에 반대하는 경향이 존재하는 것이 사실이지만 최근에 각 분야별로 국제법의 일반적인 준칙의 발전이 이루어져 가고 있고 해양법이나 형사법의 영역에서도 볼 수 있듯이 우주법 분야에 있어서도 점증하는 법적 분쟁의 해결을 위해 해양이용분야에 있어서의 해양법재판소 등을 참고하여 그에 준하는 효율적 분쟁해결기구의 탄생을 전향적으로 검토해야할 계제가 되었다는 점을 강조하고자 한다.