• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2012

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act in Japan was proclaimed on December 1, 2004, and five years have passed since the act took effect on April 1, 2007. The ADR Act enables qualified dispute resolution businesses to be certified as ADR business holders through the government's accreditation system, contributing greatly to the advancement of a private ADR. As of June 2012, the number of ADR institutes certified by the government had increased to 112. Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of Japan's ADR Act provides as follows: "The government should review the progress of the Act five years after enforcement, and take measures, if recognized as necessary, based on the results." Any problems revealed in the process of implementing the act are expected to be revised after five years of enforcement. To this end, the academic circle established an association called the Arbitration ADR Act Society in 2004, considering issues of the ADR Act and measures to improve the legislation, making policy suggestions, and working to improve management of the act, through seminars, forums, and a journal. The Japanese ADR Association, composed of ADR institutions as members, put forward a proposal entitled "Toward the Revision of the ADR Act" to the Ministry of Justice on April 2, 2012. This paper intends to identify the current state of the accreditation system, one of the most important systems under the ADR Act in Japan, in consideration of ADR Act revision. In particular, the examination includes measures to improve the accreditation system as well as data analysis of the application of accreditation, the current state of accredited institutions, and the ADR performance of accredited ADR businesses. In Korea, an ADR act has not been legislated yet, although the issue is being actively considered. This paper will be a meaningful reference for the Korean government in developing an accreditation system for inclusion in its ADR act in the future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.343-365
• /
• 2003

Dispute plays a key role in maintaining the desirable performance of trade transaction. In an effort to stay competitive in a global marketplace, the Korean companies need to become more aware of alternatives to costly and time-consuming litigation. Korean companies, therefore, should be more concerned with ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) system and should utilize ADR to settle their disputes effectively and efficiently. ADR encompasses all process of dispute resolution as a substitute for the traditional litigation. Generally, three kinds of ADR are available in Korea: Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. This article investigates reasons why ADR isn't used well in Korea and suggests ways how ADR can work best in international trade disputes. To expand ADR system in international trade disputes, it is very important for both the company and the scholar to recognize the concept and usefulness of ADR system. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board also must help both Korean companies and scholars recognize the mechanism of dispute resolution and utilize ADR system in international trade disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.97-116
• /
• 2007

This article has the objective of studying French ADR System which is unique and peculiar in the world. Nowadays commercial conflict is resolved by litigation or ADR. ADR plays an important part in resolving commercial conflict in the US, England, Germany, Japan and France. Untill now, only French ADR System has not been studied at all in Korea. So we can safely say that it is necessary to research into French ADR System in order to improve Korea's ADR System. This study is composed of Introduction, Concept of French ADR System, Actual Circumstances of French ADR System and Conclusion. The Fundamental system of French ADR is the law of February 8, 1995 that is made up of 82 articles. Among these articles, Judical Conciliation and Mediation are the most important. It is universally admitted by most of legal scholars that judicial conciliation and mediation have the character of contract. Because mutual consent is necessary in order for judicial conciliation and mediation to be effective. French system of judicial conciliation and mediation is provided in French Civil Procedure Law. Judicial conciliation plays an important role in Labor Law and Family Law. In the early part of litigation, the attempt of consiliation can be made very frequently in France. Successful conciliation and mediation are induced into negociation between parties. Arbitration has its long history in Europe. In the medieval times, Western European merchant began to use Arbitration System. After the medieval times had passed, Arbitration System took root in France. But Arbitration System has not so developed in France. On the other hand, Arbitration System has developed to a considerable degree in the US in spite of its short history. It is due to the fact that the French dislike to have recourse to litigation as compared with the Americans. However Arbitration can resolve securities conflict through various institutions in France, which is very similar to the concerned US phenomenon.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2010

In the past, ADR has not been used as frequently in Japan as it has in other parts of the industrialized world. However, though litigation is still the most utilized vehicle of dispute resolution by Japanese financial institutions, this will be changing. The New Financial ADR system, which was created by a June 2009 amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, is meant to deal with every stage of financial-related disputes and, as such, strives to resolve disputes before they become significant and acts to ameliorate any post-ADR issues that may remain, thereby completing the FIEA's purpose to protect investors. Since the foundation of the New Financial ADR system applies to all related industries, new provisions were set out in 16 business related acts, such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, and FIEA itself. October 2010 will mark the formal introduction of a new system of financial ADR in Japan. New Financial ADR in Japan will be modeled on the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom, but will not feature one comprehensive dispute resolution system in which one dispute resolution institution covers all disputes in the financial field. The New Financial ADR system is merely one step towards a foundation of comprehensive financial ADR such as FOS. It must be noted, however, that this all important first step was over seven years in the making, involving a great deal of discussion, debate, and compromise amongst many parts of Japanese government, business, and society. The New Financial ADR system grants participating parties the ability to stop the clock on any statute of limitations which may correspond to any future possible court cases related to the dispute,13 and further grants the ability to suspend related court proceedings while the parties are utilizing the New Financial ADR system. In addition, where financial institutions have not accepted dispute resolution proceedings or have not accepted a special conciliation proposal, the Ministry of Finance may issue an order compelling compliance if it is found that certain actions are necessary to ensure the appropriate operations of a financial institution's business. In Japan, as best practices have not yet been created.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.91-116
• /
• 2008

E-Commerce constitutes an important part of all commercial activities. Online Alternative Dispute Resolution(Online ADR) or Online Dispute Resolution(ODR) is a new method of dispute, resolution which, is provided online. Most Online ADR services are alternatives to litigation. In this respect, they are the online transposition of the methods developed in the ADR movement such as negotiation, mediation and arbitration. But there are also online courts which are really normal courts in which the contesting parties communicate essentially online. This paper deals with the current operation of Online ADR and the ways to, activate it. They include (1) die establishment of legal stability regarding Online ADR, (2) the enhancement of system security in providing Online ADR services, (3) the introduction of Online ADR service platform for providing the various services through single window on a national, or global basis, and (4) the introduction of Online ADR online monitoring system for systematic dispute resolution services.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.343-386
• /
• 2013

"Financial ADR" system in South Korea can be represented by so-called "Financial Dispute Resolution System", in which Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) and Financial Dispute Resolution Committee are the principal actors in operation of the system, and this is discussed as an "Administrative Financial ADR System". The system has over 10-year history since it was introduced in around 1999. Nonetheless, it was not until when financial consumer protection began to be highlighted after the 2008 financial crisis that Financial ADR system actually started to draw attention in Korea. This was because interest has been rising in "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)" as an institutional measure to protect financial consumers damaged via financial transactions. However, the current discussion on the domestic Financial ADR system shows an aspect that it is confined to who is to be a principal actor for the operation of Financial ADR institution with main regards to reorganization of supervisory system. This article aims to embody these facts in an institutional model by recognizing them as a problem and analyzing the features of the Financial ADR system, thereby clarifying problems of the system and presenting the direction of improvement. The Korean Financial ADR system can be judged as "administrative model integrated model consensual model quasi-judicial model non-prepositive Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) model". However, at the same time, it is confronted with a task to overcome the two problems; the system is not equipped with institutional basis for securing its validity in spite of the adopted quasi-judicial effect model; and a burden of operating an integrated ADR system is considerable. From this perspective, the article suggests improvement plans for security of validity in the current system and for expansion of industry-control ADR system, in particular, a system of prepositive IDR model. Amongst them, it suggests further plans for securing the validity of the system as follows; promotion to expand the number of internal persons and to differentiate mediation procedures and effect; a plan to keep a financial institution from filing a lawsuit before an agreement recommendation or a mediation proposal is advised; and a plan to grant suspension of extinctive prescription as well as that of procedures of the lawsuit.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.183-211
• /
• 2006

DDA and FTA make global business environments more competitive. These environments require Korean firms to face an unlimited competition and to resolve their dispute by ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution). Thus, Korean Companies should be more concerned with ADR system and should utilize ADR to settle their dispute effectively and efficiently. However, ADR and KCAB isn't well recognized in Korea. So, the major purposes of this study are to expand the recognition of ADR and KCAB through SWOT Analysis of KCAB in Korea. Based on the results of my study, I suggest KCAB the following guidelines. First, KCAB work closely with the concerned research association as KSSA to make a guideline books of efficient dispute resolution. Second, KCAB improves their service quality and tries to utilizes various opportunity factors well. Meanwhile, Korean government assists KCAB with funds as well as improvement of dispute resolution system as the establishment of ADR Law. Consequently, to expand ADR in Korea, revolution of KCAB Staffs' consciousness and Korean government's assistance are very needed.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.164-171
• /
• 2014

Background: Safety of drugs has become a major issue in public healthcare. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reaction (ADR) is the cornerstone in management of drug safety. We aimed to investigate the awareness and knowledge of spontaneous ADR reporting in general public of Korea. Methods: A total of 1,500 study subjects aged 19-69 years were interviewed with a questionnaire for their awareness and knowledge related to spontaneous ADR reporting. Computer assisted telephone interview was performed from 27th February 2013 to 4th March 2013. Target population was selected with quota sampling, using age, sex, and residence area. Healthcare professionals such as physicians, pharmacists, and nurses were excluded. The survey questions included awareness of spontaneous ADR reporting, opinions on ways to activate ADR reporting, and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Overall awareness of spontaneous ADR reporting system was 8.3% (${\pm}2.53%$) among general population of Korea. Major source from which people got the information regarding ADR reporting was television/radio (69.9%), followed by internet (19.3%), and poster/brochure (6.1%). Awareness level differed between age groups (p<0.0001) and education levels (p<0.0001). Upon learning about the ADR reporting system, 88.5% of study subjects agreed on the necessity of ADR reporting system, while 46.6% thought promotion through internet and mass media as an effective way to activate ADR reporting. Conclusion: The overall awareness of spontaneous ADR reporting should be enhanced in order to establish a firm national system for drug safety. Adequate promotions should be performed targeting lower awareness groups, as well as various publicity activities via effective channels for the general population.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.127-160
• /
• 2006

Civil lawsuits have been the main instruments to resolve any civil disputes until recent times but it has its limitations in resolving all disputes in the specialized and technical disputes only according to the civil trial process. Therefore, many countries have carried out a series of discussions and investigations into the system of Alternate Dispute Resolution(ADR). It should especially be noted that all related countries in the world have enacted a basic ADR law to accelerate the usage of the ADR system. The most representative cases are the American Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 and Japan's Alternative Dispute Resolution Promotion Law set up in December 2004. As such, there is a need for Korea to enact a basic law regarding ADR following the world trend of major nations. This paper looks closely not only into the enactment circumstances and contents of Japan's ADR law whose legal system is similar to that of Korea but also the aftermath discussions of the Japanese academic circles into consideration, in the hopes of providing reference data for the legislation of the Korean ADR system and further aiding in the development of the ADR law theory.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.256-268
• /
• 2013

Objective: To study the attitudes and awareness of healthcare professionals (physicians, pharmacists, nurses and others) toward the Pharmacovigilance system and experience for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from a Single University Hospital in Deajeon. Methods: A survey was performed using a structured questionnaire involving 360 health-care professionals at the hospital between $1^{st}$ November and $16^{th}$ November, 2012. Results: Sixty-five percent (n=235) of all respondents were experienced incidences of ADRs for their patients and 55.8% (n=201) knew the ADR Spontaneous Reporting System in the hospital. However, three-fourths (n=273, 75.8%) of respondents did not know the existence of the Korean Association of Regional Pharmacovigilance Centers (KARP) and 61.7% (n=222) were unaware of the obligation of ADR report from KFDA in cases of serious ADRs. About 83% (n=299) answered that the electronic ADR report system of the hospital was helpful while their work and most (n=336, 93.3%) agreed on the necessaries of the promotion and education about ADR. Conclusion: Seventy-five percent (n=271) of respondents wanted to continue the work for evaluation and feedback for ADRs reported in the hospital. However, the barriers to reporting ADR were; inconvenient ADR reporting system and the lack of time to report ADRs. This study showed that the easier ADR reporting system and education and promotion about ADRs for health-care providers are needed to improve the ADR reporting.