• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

International arbitration is the important field of applying CISG and the backbone of uniform law developed by CISG. Now CIETAC tribunals like courts of contracting states apply CISG precisely, which is beneficial to improving the quality and the credit of arbitral cases. Arbitration has the characters of independence and the non-government. the legal foundation of arbitral tribunal's applying CISG are the national arbitral law, the applicable arbitral procedures and usages of arbitration, not for performing international obligations under the CISG. CIETAC mainly use China Contract Law and CISG over the cases of sale of goods. Because of no provisions on recovery of differential price loss (equal to article 75 and 76 of CISG) Chinese tribunals have more discretion in determining the sum of damages under the China Contract Law. Applying China Contract Law may not beneficial to aggrieved party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.109-148
• /
• 1991

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.141-141
• /
• 2017

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

Together with the development of space science outer space law has become one of the most rapidly developing branches of international law. This reflects a general realization that these new activities must be subject to reasonable legal regulation if they are to serve the peaceful purposes of mankind without undue confusion and disorder. The exploration and use of outer space introduces many novel opportunities and dilemmas, and inspired insights are needed in the development of this new resource. In particular, the settlement of space law disputes is a relatively new discussion in international law. However, the significance of the settlement of space law disputes was acknowledged in various colloquia organized by legal academicians and practitioners around the world. Analysis of the dispute settlement provisions in space agreements plainly reveals the degree to which States persist to be mistrustful of any impingement to their sovereignty. They are reluctant to submit disputes to adjudication and binding arbitration, particularly when these provisions are negotiated between States which have dissimilar political, economic and social interests and demography. However, there is a slow but clear shift in this attitude as States realize the contemporary political, economic and technical pressures necessitating the lifting of the veil of State sovereignty. The development of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes arising in relation to the development of the exploration and exploitation of outer space has been the subject of global study by highly qualified publicists and international institutions. The 1972 Liability Convention is the space treaty with the most elaborate provisions for dispute settlement. However, it fails to ensure binding decisions. In this point, the 1998 Taipei Final Draft Convention may be a useful instrument for further consideration on whether an independent sectorialized dispute settlement mechanism should be established. Considering these circumstances it seemed essential to take legislative action to implement a system as comprehensive as the relevant legal framework are in the Law of the Sea and International Criminal Law mechanisms for dispute settlement and conflict avoidance from outer space activities.