• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2011

본 연구에서는 항해용선계약상 Asbatankvoy 서식을 중심으로 집단대표중재의 효과에 관한 분석을 하는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위한 자료로서 미국에서 쟁점이 된 Stolt-Nielsen 사건을 분석하고 있다. 이 사건에서 집단대표중재원칙은 중재조항이 집단대표중재를 허용할지의 여부를 결정하는 것은 중재인에게 요구하고 있다는 것이다. 당사자는 중재패널을 선임하고 중재지를 뉴욕시로 지정하였다. 또한 중재조항은 집단대표중재문제에 대하여 침묵한다는 것을 규정하고 있었다. 중재패널은 중재조항은 집단대표중재를 허용한 것이라고 판정하였지만, 지방법원은 중재판정을 무효라고 판정하였다. 그러나 제2순회구항소법원은 청구자는 집단대표중재에 대한 관례 관습과 관련된 해사원칙을 적용할 권한이 없다는 것을 인용하고 있기 때문에 중재인의 판정은 해사법의 명백한 무시를 한 것이 아니라고 판결하였다. 즉 중재인은 집단대표중재에 대한 원칙을 확립하지 않고 있는 뉴욕법을 명백하게 무시한 것이 아니라는 것이다. 그러나 미국 연방최고법원은 당사자들이 중재합의를 하였으나, 개별분쟁이 아닌 집단을 당사자로 하는 집단분쟁을 중재로 해결할지에 관하여 침묵하고 있는 경우에 집단대표중재를 강제할 수 있는지에 관하여 중재를 강제할 수 없다는 판결을 선고하였다. 최고법원에 따르면 연방중재법 상 당사자들이 분쟁을 중재로 해결하는 것을 허용하기로 합의하지 않았다면 중재를 강제할 수 없는 것이 원칙이라고 판시하고 있다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2017

중국과의 무역거래가 지속적으로 증가하고 있는 가운데 상사분쟁 발생 가능성도 커지고 있으며 사회주의 국가체제에 익숙하지 못한 한국 기업의 입장에서는 중국의 상사중재제도에 대한 연구는 필수불가결하다. 근래 중국은 국제표준과 시장경제에 맞추어 국내법규를 개정함으로써 외국기업들에게 법적 안정성 보장을 위한 지속적인 노력을 하고 있지만 여러 가지 문화적, 정치적, 사회적 특성으로 말미암아 법규의 내용에 한계점과 실무상의 문제점이 존재한다. 중국 상사중재제도는 국내중재와 국제중재 일부 구별 적용, 임시중재 불인정, 당사자자치의 제한, 중재기관의 독립성 부족, 중재에 대한 사법간여, 판정집행의 곤란 등 다른 국가와 차이점이 있다. 또한 중국의 중재기관에서는 중재절차 중에 판정부가 직접 조정을 진행하고 조정결과를 판정서로 작성하는 중재와 조정의 결합이 이루어지고 있다. 이와 같은 본 논문은 중국 상사중재제도의 법적 주요내용을 살펴봄으로써 중국 기업과의 상사분쟁해결에 대한 법적 실무적 대응방안을 제시하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.33-56
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has cancelled four cases of thirty-nine Arbitral awards made by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Three cases of them were cancelled by the reason of the arbitrator's disqualification in relation to impartiality or independence and the other to arbitration agreement enable to select the lawsuit or arbitration. When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator or has already been appointed as such, he shall without delay disclose all circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence according to the one of the article 13 of Korean Arbitration Act. Upon being notified of the appointment as an arbitrator, each arbitrator shall immediately disclose in writing to the Secretariat any circumstances which might cause reasonable doubt about impartiality or independence. An arbitration agreement shall be made clearly and in writing not to appeal to the court or to be brought in the court. However most of the korean construction contracts have the arbitration agreement clause enable to appeal to the court or the arbitration on government official's advice. Many of these disputes are resolved by litigation after the precedent(Law case number : 2003da318) set by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2003 between the Korea(government) and the Korea Railroad or abandoned its attempt to arbitration. But each year, about four hundreds of arbitration business transactions were resolved arbitration, the voluntary submission of a dispute to an impartial person or persons for final and binding determination. Arbitration has proven to be an effective way to resolve these disputes privately, promptly, and economically.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.263-292
• /
• 2005

In China, as far as the enforcement of the award is concerned, a three-pronged regime exists : each for domestic, foreign-related and foreign awards. As opposed to domestic awards, foreign-related awards are defined as those involving 'foreign-element.' Among them, this article focuses on the enforcement regimes of foreign-related and foreign arbitral award, and strives to provide a practical outlook of the arbitral award enforcement regime in China. For that, this article consists of five chapters. In chapter I, the purpose and scope of this study are mentioned; In Chapter II, the types, the statutory framework, the related measures, the statistical assessment on enforcement of arbitral awards are addressed. Chapter III points out some issues on the enforcement regimes of foreign-related and foreign arbitral awards, with focus paid to the recognition of foreign-related arbitral awards, the substantive judicial review of foreign-related arbitral awards, and the refusal of enforcement with the social and public interest ground. Chapter VI introduces two non-enforcement cases of foreign-related and foreign arbitral awards. Lastly in chapter V, the author makes a proposal to improve the enforcement regime in China. Although China already obtained a certain level of achievement, she still need to be undertaken by the government and judicial authorities to offset the negative effects of some obstacles to hamper the enforcement such as protectionism so that she may create a more favorable arbitration environment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.121-150
• /
• 2006

Under the New York Convention, parties can petition the courts of the United States to confirm foreign arbitral awards. Although there is no definition in the Convention for 'non-domestic' awards, in the United States, federal and state courts read the Convention broadly and interpret this as permitting the enforcing authority to supply its own definition of 'non-domestic' in conformity with its own domestic law. There are a number of federal cases on this point. The court preferred this broad construction of 'non-domestic' awards because it comported with the intended purpose of the Convention, which was entered into to encourage the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. This means that in applying the New York Convention, U.S. courts have responded to the underlying spirit rather than the technical letter of the Convention. In brief, the New York Convention has much broader application in the United States. It is applicable not only to awards rendered outside of the United States, but also to non-domestic awards rendered within United States. As this article suggests, the general attitude towards foreign awards is more pro-enforcement in the United States, whether the award is rendered in favor of the American party or in favor of the foreign party.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 중재판정부의 임시적 처분에 대하여 중국 정부가 어떤 기준에 근거하여 판단하고 있는지 관련 사례분석을 통해 규명하고자 하였다. 먼저 대부분의 국가에서 중재판정부 에 의한 임시적 처분을 인정하고 있는 반면, 중국은 여전히 법원 고유의 권한으로 인정하고 있다. 이는 국제적 추세와 불일치하는 판단이기도 하다. 특히 주요법률 규정인 중재법과 민사소송법이 2017년에 개정되었음에도 임시적 처분에 대한 규정은 변화가 없고 여전히 중재규칙간의 불일치로 인한 문제가 남아 있다. 따라서 중재절차상 임시적 처분이 어떻게 적용하고 집행하는지 중국의 입장과 태도에 대해서 주의를 기울일 필요가 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2015

This paper deals with the annulment of the ICSID(International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) arbitral award. The annulment of the ICSID is characterized by the fact that it can be made possible through the special committee of ICSID only. The annulment of the ICSID was constructed on the premise that it is not an appeal procedure. However in the initial period, it was strongly criticized as it allowed new trials or duplicated many of the functions of an appeal and it broke down the boundary between the two systems. Although the trend seemed to be corrected through its 2nd and 3rd generations, it was still criticized for functioning as a new trial. It is approaching its 4th generation. On the other hand, with the activation of investment agreement arbitration based on ICSID and FTA, a certain degree of consistency is required for the ICSID arbitralaward. Also, with the emphasis on the public features of the arbitration for the investment agreement, the necessity of an appeal system is presented. The ICSID Secretariat published the "Opinion on the Appeal Procedure" in 2004 but as the system was criticized as too early due to the cost allocation problem and others, its adoption of an appeal procedure has been delayed. This paper focuses on how the currently incomplete ICSID arbitration judgment annulment system shall be used. Although it is still hardto expect the quality and consistent arbitral award annulment in the ICSID, this paper suggests that the "annulment without the actual new trial" using the restricted authority of a special commission in a creative way shall be pursued rather than just the actual new trial with or without annulment, thus going back to the original concept of the ICSID arbitral award annulment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2013

When a court recognizes an arbitral award, it acknowledges that the award is valid and binding, and thereby gives it a set of effects similar to those of a court's judgment, among which res judicata is the most important. The res judicata effect of an arbitral award generally forbids parties to an action from subsequently litigating claims that were raised in a prior arbitration. In common law countries, res judicata may also preclude re-adjudication of issues raised and decided in a prior arbitration. The Korean Arbitration Act acknowledges the rights of parties to an arbitral award to seek not only an enforcement judgment but also a recognition judgment on an arbitral award. Therefore, the question arises whether or not the winning party in an arbitration must acquire a recognition judgment on the arbitral award in order to enjoy the effects of a recognized award. However, according to the case law and generally accepted views, an arbitral award is automatically recognized without any additional procedure, as long as it satisfies the requirements for recognition. Therefore, in order to resolve this question, it is desirable to eliminate the statutory clause that stipulates the right to seek recognition judgment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• pp.27-44
• /
• 2024

The lack of consistency and predictability of arbitral awards in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement ("ISDS") mechanism has long been a subject of criticism. In international investment disputes, arbitral tribunals have frequently come up with different interpretations and results on similar investment agreement provisions. The arbitral tribunal's inconsistent decisions raised concerns not only among the parties to the investment dispute but also amongthe arbitral tribunals in other cases, which ultimately led to legal inconsistencies in international investment law. Arbitration awards may have some degree of disagreement in interpretation. However, the systemic inconsistencies that pervade ISDS risk undermining the purpose of the investment agreement system, which is to provide a predictable and stable framework to protect andpromote foreign investment while maintaining a balance with host state regulations. Therefore, this study proposes a plan to resolve this discrepancy and review standards for practical application. Reform of the ISDS mechanism could be a viable option to reduce, to some extent, the inconsistencies in interpretation, if not completely eliminate them. Reforms such as establishingguidelines, promoting cooperation between arbitral tribunals, and codifying the norms of the agreement can provide a means of reducing interpretive inconsistencies and strengthening the legitimacy of the ISDS mechanism. Reforming the ISDS mechanism will require all stakeholders to carefully consider the issues and the scope, nature, and feasibility of eachpotential reform.