• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• 인간행동과 음악연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.1-24
• /
• 2019

본 연구의 목적은 국내 지적장애 아동 청소년 대상 음악중재연구의 전반적 특성, 중재내용의 특징, 제시된 음악중재 실행방법의 기술수준과 논거의 적절성을 파악하여 음악중재의 전문성을 알아보고자 함이며, 이를 위해 연구자의 학문적 배경 및 목표영역에 따른 비교를 통해 연구 간 차이를 알아보았다. 따라서 연구자는 분석기준에 부합하는 KCI 등재(후보)학술지 게재논문 20편을 선정 후 분석하였고, 그 결과 실행된 중재내용의 특징이 연구자의 학문적 배경 및 목표영역별로 상이한 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 한편, 음악중재 실행방법의 기술수준과 논거의 적절성을 분석한 결과에서는 음악치료이론 및 선행연구를 바탕으로 적절한 논거를 제시한 연구가 2편에 불과하였고, 중재전문성에 따라 목표와 중재논거의 연결성 및 접근법에 차이가 있음을 확인하였다. 이는 음악치료 전공 여부에 따라 중재논거의 기술수준과 구체성에 차이가 있어 추후 중재연구 결과 해석 시 중재전문성에 대한 고려가 중요함을 보여준다. 본 연구는 연구자의 학문적 배경 및 목표영역에 따라 나타난 특징을 분석하여 전반적인 접근법 및 제시논거의 차이와 관련한 기초자료를 제공하였다는 데 의의가 있으며, 앞으로의 중재연구에서 음악치료 논거의 구성 및 기술의 구체성에 대한 중요성을 시사한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.87-101
• /
• 2022

Since Research and Development has been expanded by government, It is very important to evaluate the outcome of Research and Development. Government have levied the penalty of researchers who misused research funding as time goes on. However, there is no protect law for the research before 2021. Government put new committee for the researchers to judge whether their action is legal or illegal based of Innovation Act 2021. Due to the various outcome index of research and development, many firms which is paticipating the research and development have been confused the outcome index. Also, It is difficult for government agencies for management to evaluate the outcome. Even if the committee is trying to solve dispute between researchers and the government agencies, it is not enough to solve it. Therefore, we need to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR), because the ADR has been developved detail skills for long time.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.183-197
• /
• 2014

1. This study focuses on recent developments of trade transaction between Korea and China. The volume of trade is most rapidly increasing. There have been many items considered to ensure the proper, impartial, and rapid settlement of disputes in private laws by international arbitration. The article contains recent tendencies and proceedings of cases including place of arbitration, language, and so on. 2. The contract made between parties has led to some interpretational, legal questions. Interpretational questions rise mainly from differences of legal systems and legal questions on applying law. The characteristic features of the contract have different meanings, so some articles of the contract can be construed unlawful as a result. 3. As regards the Arbitration Act of Korea, Article 10, the Arbitration Agreement and Interim Measures by Court stipulate the following: A party to an arbitration agreement may request from a court art interim a measure of protection before or during arbitral proceedings. This article examines the application of Article 10 of the Arbitration Act of Korea.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2012

Arbitration is an essential methods of settlement for disputes in international commercial transaction. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have been in force after adoption in 1976. Over the 30 years, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules have been modeled for domestic and international arbitration institutes for setting and revision on their arbitration rules. UNCITRAL Committee has published the revised Arbitration Rules which entered into force after 15 August 2010. Therefore new version of arbitration rules are substituted for the previous version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 since its enforcement. The revised arbitration rules of UNCITRAL have been changed in various items for convergence with new trends and modern practices on arbitration including information communication and technology. The revision of arbitration rules focused on resolving problems in practice and codifying best practice to enhance the efficiency of arbitration conducted under the rules. There are considerable in a number of important respects on the removing the restricted in writing requirement for information technology, adapting the multiparties arbitration, joinder arbitration, truncated arbitral tribunal and adjustment in terms and condition and construction simply. Also a number of provisions have been refined, varied and clarified with new articles included. Conclusively the new revised arbitration rules fill a number of gaps which became apparent in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 to bring into line with new modern practices of international arbitration rules in international commercial disputes. This paper focus on the study the problems and inspired points on significant revised provisions and its considerable points in arbitration environment. This paper is approaching to the comparisons of UNCITRAL revised Arbitration Rules 2010 with previous Arbitration Rules 1976 of UNCITRAL and International Arbitration Rules 2011 of KCAB.

• 디지털융복합연구
• /
• 제10권11호
• /
• pp.551-558
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 카이로프랙틱 기법 중 누운 자세에서 시술되어지는 S.O.T category II 골반 블록 중재가 골반의 불안정으로 인한 기울어짐을 회복시킴으로써 이에 따른 어깨통증을 줄이고 복근의 지구력을 향상시킬 수 있는지 알아보고자 한 것이다. 이 실험을 위해 엉치엉덩관절의 불안정을 가지고 있으며 허리의 통증이 있는 총 50명의 참여자가 실험군과 대조군에 각 25명씩 무작위 할당되었다. 실험군은 category II 블록 중재를 받았고, 대조군은 거짓블록 중재를 받았으며, 이들 두 집단을 통해 중재 전, 중재 후, 그리고 중재 2주 후에 복근지구력과 어깨통증을 측정하여 그 결과를 반복측정 이원분산분석법으로 분석하였다. 분석결과 S.O.T category II 골반 블록 중재 후 실험집단에서 복근지구력이 유의한 증가를 보였으며 중재가 끝난 2주 후에도 유지 되었다. 또한 어깨통증의 경우에도 실험집단에서 통증의 감소를 보였으며 역시 중재가 끝난 2주 후에도 유의한 감소를 보였다. 이상의 연구 결과를 종합해 볼 때 S.O.T category II 골반 블록 중재는 골반의 안정성을 유도하여 복근지구력을 증진시키고, 어깨통증을 감소시키며 중재 후에도 지속효과가 있는 것으로 나타남으로, 골반의 불안정성이 원인이 되는 어깨통증이나 복근지구력을 회복시킬 수 있는 중재법으로 활용되어질 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2017

This paper examines some questions and issues of the effect of an arbitral award, and discusses about the restriction of the trial level in other separate actions permitted under the existence of grounds of setting aside arbitral award after the amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016. Because there are no interests of litigation in the action for setting aside arbitral award due to the exclusion of res judicata by provisory clause of Article 35, filing an action for setting aside is not allowed even when the grounds of setting aside exist. If we examine the precedent on possibility of retrial for excluding the outward form of invalid judgement, we can find that the court did not approve the retrial. Therefore, the action for setting aside that which is for excluding the outward form of an arbitral award will not be allowed for filing. On the issue of whether an arbitral award having a ground for setting aside can be an object of the action for setting aside for excluding its outward form or not, the views of scholars are divided. In the case of an arbitral award that has grounds for setting aside, it could be interpreted that the arbitral award would not have a formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft). Even if there is formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft), the significance of existence of action for setting aside arbitral award under paragraph 1 of Article 36 is reduced because other actions separate from arbitration is permitted under the 2016 Act. The amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016 provides an opportunity to review the position and the role of action for setting aside the arbitral award. It also requires further studies on efficiently treating other actions separate from arbitration. Because the restriction of the trial level of other separate actions can make arbitration active by making arbitration procedures become 3 trial levels from 4 trial levels, it needs to be solved with legislative action. Specifically, if the trial starts at the stage of trial on appeal, it can utilize the strength of both the arbitration and the litigation, playing a chief role in boosting arbitration by removing the problems of action for setting aside and enabling arbitration institutes and the person interested to promote the activation of arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2006

Arbitration, which involves a final determination of disputes, has elements of the judicial process. Although an alternative to formal court litigation, it does not replace it in all aspect, but rather coexists with court procedure as an adjunct and part of administering justice. As the international trade has the basic problems of business managed between the parties of other countries having different laws, customs, cultures, currencies and religions. It has been known that these defects caused the commercial disputes and suspended economic fluence in world economic development through the foreign business. The United Nations launched 'the United Nations Convention on the Enforcement and Recognition of the Foreign Arbitral Awards' in 1958 to give effect to the international commercial arbitration. However, the convention has the limitation in excluding the legal obstacles originated from domestic arbitration systems of every states. As the result, the UN succeeded in making world wide arbitration law named 'The UN Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration' in 1983 and recommended all member countries to accept it to revise their domestic arbitration laws thereafter. Korea revised national arbitration law accepting 100% of the model law in 2000. In this respect korea became to have the international dispute settlement system. Korea will be able to settle more business disputes arisen from the international trade and enjoy the world credibility through the new arbitration system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.91-130
• /
• 2010

This thesis, which mainly focuses on judicial supervision of commercial arbitration in China, will deal with the developing process of arbitration system and analyze the actual condition of judicial supervision in commercial arbitration. And it also focuses on the underlying problems attributed to the excessive judicial intervention and an effort that the related academic world, arbitration industry and legal circles in China start to make in order to improve the system, resolving them. About the time China became a member of the WTO and about the 10th anniversary of the enforcement of Arbitration Law, powerful demands to solve the problems started to exist intensively. Academic field in China integrated these demands into the form of "proposed amendment of arbitration law", which enhanced the independence of arbitration and the autonomy of the involved parties drastically, as it accepted major contents of UNCITRAL Model Law while preserving of original tool of Chinese arbitration system. Separately from the movement in academic field, Supreme People's Court starts to exert itself for the, improvement of arbitration system, by announcing a series of proposed judicial interpretation so that it could collect the public opinion continuously and reflect the gathered opinion in judicial interpretation efficiently. Notwithstanding, there still remains to be ameliorated that the Arbitration Law of the PRC won't be able to overcome original limit when valuating judicial intervention on arbitration in some ways.