• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.11 s.196
• /
• pp.70-73
• /
• 2006

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.10 s.219
• /
• pp.62-64
• /
• 2008

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.6 s.203
• /
• pp.78-80
• /
• 2007

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.1 s.198
• /
• pp.97-99
• /
• 2007

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.2 s.199
• /
• pp.88-90
• /
• 2007

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.131-160
• /
• 2017

When any investment dispute arises, the investor has to exhaust the local remedies available in the host state, and according to the agreement between the parties, the investor is filed to the ICSID arbitral tribunal to seek arbitral awards. At this time, if the arbitral tribunal decides that the investment agreement has been violated, it normally demands the host state to provide financial compensations to the investor for economic loss. According to the rules of the investment agreement, the host state is supposed to fulfill the arbitral awards voluntarily. If it is unwilling to provide financial compensations according to the arbitral awards, however, the investor may ask the domestic court of the host state for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In addition, if the host state is unwilling to fulfill arbitral awards on account of state immunity, the investor may ask his own country (state of nationality) for diplomatic protection and urge it to demand the fulfillment of arbitral awards. Effectiveness for pecuniary damages, a means to solve problems arising in the enforcement of investment arbitral awards, is found to be rather ineffective. For such cases, this study suggests an alternative to demand either a restitution of property or a corrections of violated measures subject to arbitral awards.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

In Count case, the owners claimed from the charterers the amount of their loss resulting from the delay to the Count caused by the blockage of the channel due to stranding of the Pongola on the ground that this loss resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions. The Claim was referred to arbitration and dealt with on written submission. In a reasoned award, the arbitrators upheld the owners' claim. The charterers seek an order reversing the award or remitting it to the arbitrators for further consideration : (1) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port of Beira was unsafe and that in consequence the charterers were liable to the owners in damages for detention. (2) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port was unsafe in the abstract by reference to the fact that two other vessels had grounded there. (3) Having held that the Count was delayed for a little over four days by the fact that, after the charterers had nominated the port, the Pongola had grounded in the access channel, the tribunal should have held that the port was not prospectively unsafe. On the that the grounding the Pongola was caused by the characteristics which made the port an unsafe port to nominate for the Count. The court was held that it was not an independent event which broke the chain of causation between the breach of contract and the owner's loss. For those reasons, the court was upheld the arbitrator's award.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.125-157
• /
• 2012

This study is to vindicate the vacation of arbitral awards in the United States. It focuses on the harmony of case law with statutory law of the United States. Until the early twentieth century, the American legal system, having adopted the English common law view, harbored a hostile attitude toward arbitration. The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of the United States, enacted in 1925, was to eliminate the hostile attitude of courts toward arbitration. Congress is to enforce arbitration agreements into which parties have entered and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. The structure of grounds for vacating arbitration awards has two layers. One is of vacating grounds with statutory origins, such as the FAA and the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the other, of vacating grounds originating from a nonstatutory, case law background. For a while, vacatur based on case law has coexisted with vacatur on statutory grounds for arbitration awards. After the Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., however, the justification of vacating based on case law has weakened. Post-Hall Street decisions of circuit courts show ways to deal with manifest disregard of the law. One of them is the harmonization of the case law grounds for vacating with the statutory grounds. It seems that the manifest-disregard-of-law and public-policy exceptions show a possibility of survival after Hall Street. However, other nonstatutory grounds for vacation of arbitration awards have no firm basis after Hall Street.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.