• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.45-80
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the method of arbitration agreement, the adoption and contents of the Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, and the standpoint and problem with reference to the new Convention's application to the method of arbitration agreement in New York Convention. Last year the UN General Assembly and UNCITRAL adopted a new Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts that makes agreements by electronic communications enforceable, including arbitration agreements under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral A wards (New York Convention). Aimed at enhancing legal certainty and commercial predictability where electronic communications are used in relation to international contracts, the provisions of the Convention deal with, among other things, determining a party's location in an electronic environment; the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications; and the use of automated message systems for contract formation. Under the New York Convention, arbitration agreements in international contracts must be reduced to writing before they can be enforced. But under the new Convention, an arbitration agreement made entirely in electronic form would be enforceable. The working group expressed overall support in favor of the inclusion of a reference to the New York Convention in the new Convention. However, one proposal was that the exclusions provided under article 2 of the new Convention might be too broadly worded to adequately accommodate the New York Convention. In conclusion, Korea's government authorities should take prompt measures to sign and ratify the new Convention, and declare on the scope of its application. Also Korea's arbitration institute should make preparation for the amendment of the arbitration act and arbitration rules in accordance with the new Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.83-105
• /
• 2021

If aggrieving consumers or employees cannot prove both substantive and procedural unconscionability, many U.S. state courts will enforce arbitration agreements. Additionally, U.S. courts weigh a variety of factors to determine whether an arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable. For example, U.S. courts have considered one or a combination of the following factors: (1) the fairness of contractual terms; (2) the severity of contractual terms' deviation from prevailing standards, customs, or practices within a particular industry; (3) the reasonableness of goods-and-services contract prices; (4) the commercial reasonableness of the contract terms; (5) the purpose and effect of the terms and (6) "the allocation of risks between the parties." Further, procedural unconscionability characterized by surprise or lack of knowledge focuses on terms that are deceptively hidden in a mass of contract language, the object of another concealment, or imposed in the circumstances involving haste or high-pressure tactics so that they are not likely to be read or understood. This unconscionability doctrine can be applied to a situation where an alcoholic dementia-afflicted older adult is admitted to a nursing home. At that time, because she had alcoholic dementia, which precluded her reading, comprehending, writing, negotiating, or signing of any legal document, her son, who did not understand the adhesion contract, signed the standardized residential contract and the arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2022

The modern arbitration practice recognises the need for a faster and simplified procedural framework for international disputes with fairly low amounts at stake. This has driven several institutions to expand their offer of procedural guidelines with a simplified set of rules that would fit this purpose. Expedited arbitration is increasingly used by parties and is growing in popularity. The basic idea behind establishing expedited arbitration rules is to create the possibility for the parties to a dispute to agree on a simplified and streamlined procedure and to have an arbitration award issued within a short period. The associated cost savings for the parties is another benefit. The importance of developing rules for expedited dispute resolution has recently also been considered by the UNCITRAL Working Group II, in light of the "increasing demand to resolve simple, low-value cases by arbitration" and "the lack of international mechanisms cope with such disputes." As a result, the UNCITRAL 2021 Expedited Arbitration Rules (UNCITRAL EAR) took effect on September 19, 2021. The EAR was adopted by the Commission on 21 July 2021 and, next to UNCITRAL's well-known instruments like the Arbitration Rules (UAR) and the Model Law, represent another chapter in the Commission's impactful work in the field of international arbitration. Overall, the UNCITRAL EAR has great potential to meet the need for more flexible and efficient arbitration proceedings, primarily because they provide the tribunal with strong managerial powers while still leaving room for consultation with the parties. However, parties must remember that not all disputes may be suitable for expedited arbitration, and disputes that are complex or have the possibility of being joint or consolidated may not benefit from simplified procedures and tight deadlines. This article will outline the core features and characteristics of the UNCITRAL EAR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.151-182
• /
• 2016

The right to be forgotten (RTBF) has been a population notion to address privacy issues associated with the digitalization of information and the dissemination of such information over the global digital network. In May 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) laid down a landmark RTBF decision to grant individuals the right to be de-listed from search results. ECJ's RTBF decision sparked an increased interest in RTBF in South Korea. Academic and non-academic commentators have provided a mistaken or outstretched interpretation of RTBF in claiming that removal of news articles should be read into RTBF in Korean law. Moreover, the Press Arbitration Commission of Korea (PAC) has proposed revising the Press Arbitration Act (PAA) to allow the alleged victims of news reporting to request the deletion of news stories. This article examines the notion of RTBF from its origin to the latest development abroad and also critically explores Korean laws regulation freedom of expression to evaluate if Korea needs the proposed PAA revision.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2000

Neben der staatlichen Gerichtsbarkeit gibt es eine gesetzlich legitimierte Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit durch Privatpersonen nach dem Schiedsverfahrensrecht. Diese Institution entwickelte sich zwar als $\ddot{U}bergangsstufe$ von der Selbsthilfe zur staatlichen Gerichtsbarkeit und aber erlangt zur Zeit mit dem Wirtschaftswachstum, vor allem mit der Verschmelzung des internationalen Handels eine hervorragende Stellung im Justizsystem. $F\ddot{u}r$ die weitere Entwicklung der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist die $Unterst\ddot{u}tzung$ und Kontrolle des staatlichen Gerichts von großer Bedeutung. In der vorliegenden Arbeit handelt es sich $haupts\ddot{a}chlich$ um die Rolle und Grenze des Gerichts in der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Dabei ist die Rolle des Gerichts in 3 Teilen geteilt untersucht, und zwar die aktive, die passive und die kontrollierende Rolle des Gerichts. Unter der ersten $geh\ddot{o}ren$ das Eingreifen des Gerichts in das Schiedsverfahren, z.B. bei der Bestellung und Ablehnung des Schiedsrichters und bei der Frage $\ddot{u}ber$ die Bedendigung des Schiedsrichteramtes und die einstweiligen Maßnahmen des Gerichts sowie die $Unterst\ddot{u}tzung$ des Gerichts bei der Beweisaufnahme. Weil das Schiedsgericht keine Zwangsgewalt besitzt, ist die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in bestimmten $F\ddot{a}llen$ auf die aktive Mitwirkung des Gerichts stark angewiesen. Die Rolle des Gerichts in der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist aber durch die Entscheidungsbefugnis des Schiedsgerichts $\ddot{u}ber$ die eigene $Zust\ddot{a}ndigkeit$ und $\ddot{u}ber$ die $G\ddot{u}ltigkeit$ der Schiedsvereinbarung(sog. Kompentz-Kompetenz) und durch den einstweiligen Rechtsschutz durch das Schiedsgericht $eingeschr\ddot{a}nkt$. Hier $beschr\ddot{a}nkt$ sich das Gericht auf die passive Rolle. Die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist außerdem der Kontrolle durch das staatliche Gericht zu unterziehen, sei es durch die Aufhebungsklage oder sei es durch die Entscheidung $\ddot{u}ber$ die Vollstreckung des Schiedsspruchs. Besonders im $Vollstreckbarerkl\ddot{a}rungsverfahren$ hat das ordentliche Gericht eine umfangreiche $\ddot{U}berpr\ddot{u}fungsm\ddot{o}glichkeit$ des Schiedsspruchs. Einerseits soll die Stellung der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit nicht durch die Mitwirkung und Kontrolle des staatlichen Gerichts entwertet werden, andererseits ist es aber Aufgabe des Staates, die Richtigkeit der schiedsgerichtlichen Entscheidung zu garantieren. In der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ist auch das Rechtsstaatsprinzip aufrechterhalten zu bleiben. Abschließend ist festzustellen, daß die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ohne Mitwirkung des staatlichen Gerichts nicht auskommt, die Rolle des Gerichts aber auf das erforderliche Maß $beschr\ddot{a}nkt$ sein sollte.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor's alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor's investment.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.235-254
• /
• 2016

최근 남중국해(South China Sea: 南中國海)가 동아시아 해양안보의 중심 이슈로 대두되고 있다. 아울러 남중국해 문제가 당사국 간 해양분쟁 및 해양경계획정 이슈만이 아닌, 제3자 개입 등의 다자간 해양분쟁과 대립으로 확산되는 매우 복잡한 양상을 보이고 있다. 이러한 남중국해 해양문제는 미국과 중국 간의 강대국 경쟁구도가 적용되어 힘의 시현을 위한 대결 국면이 되는 반면, 중국이 전통적 해양이익을 구단선(nine dash line)을 근거로 주장하면서 국제법 적용 문제에 따른 법적 문제의 성격을 나타내고 있다. 이에 따라 최근 남중국해 상황은 '항해의 자유(Freedom of Navigation)' 보장을 주장하는 미국, 역사적 권리 보장을 위해 일반적 조치를 강행하고 해군력을 증강시키는 중국, 그리고 남중국해를 경유하는 수많은 선박들의 항해 안전(navigational safety)을 강조하는 역내 국가 간 의견이 표출되는 복잡한 양상으로 나타나고 있다. 특히 최근 중국이 상설중재재판소의 남중국해 중재판결을 무시하여 국제법 적용이 어려운 가운데 포괄적 동아시아 해양안보 차원에서 남중국해 이슈 해결을 위한 새로운 접근방안이 요구되고 있다. 이는 남중국해에 대한 당사국 간 평화적 분쟁 해결과 더불어, 강대국 간의 전략적 함의에 의한 해결이 병행되어야 함을 의미한다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2018

This paper aims to explore ways to develop the arbitration industry in Korea. The prospects for the promotion of the arbitration industry in Korea are never dim. International arbitration competitiveness is somewhat lower than its competitors at present, but the international economic base to support it is solid, and the domestic arbitration environment seems to be sufficient to support the development possibility of arbitration. Since geographical and economic factors have already been defined, Korea must at least improve the arbitration act with passion and vision for the best one. The arbitration act that is the most accessible to arbitration consumers is the best arbitration act. The important thing is to have an arbitration act that makes people want to use more than litigation or other dispute resolution procedures. There is no hope of remaining as a "second mover" in the field of arbitration law. One should have a will and ambition to become a "first mover" even if it is risky. Considering the situation of the current arbitration law, it is necessary to start an arbitration appeal system in order to become a consumer-friendly arbitration law, and it is necessary to examine ways of integrating the grant of execution clause and enforcement application procedures. The abolition of the condition of Article 35 of the Arbitration Act, which rules the validity of the arbitration award, will help promote international arbitration. Exclusion agreements of setting aside against arbitration awards must also be fully recognized. It is also important to publish a widely cited international arbitration journal. In order to respond to the fourth industrial revolution era, it is necessary to support the establishment of a dispute resolution system that utilizes IT technology. In order to actively engage the arbitrators in the market, it is necessary to abolish the regulations that exist in the Attorneys-at-Law Act. There is also a need to allocate more budget to educate arbitration consumers and to establish arbitration training centers to strengthen domestic arbitration education. It is also necessary to evaluate and verify the Arbitration Promotion Act so that it can achieve results. In the international arbitration market, competition is fierce and competitors are already taking the initiative, so in order not to miss the timing, Korea needs to activate international arbitration first. In order to activate international arbitration, the arbitration body needs to be managed with the same mobility and strategy as the agency in the marketplace. In Korea, unlike in Singapore and Hong Kong, it is necessary to recognize that the size of the domestic arbitration market is very likely to increase sharply due to the economic size of the country and the large market potential it can bring from litigation. In order to promote the arbitration industry, what is most important is to make arbitration activities in accordance with the principles of the market and to establish an institutional basis to enable competition. It is urgently required to change the perception of the relevant government departments and arbitration officials.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.