• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2024

This paper examines issues concerning conflicts between arbitral awards and public interests, particularly with respect to economic sanctions. Sanctions have been widely used by political entities, such as States and organizations, as means to promote public interests and to resolve cross-border disputes. In particular, economic sanctions have been increasingly more visible in recent years due to the accelerating fragmentation of the international communities, and their magnitude and range of the impacts have grown accordingly. For example, the U.S. and the EU have imposed economic sanctions on Russia and related persons in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. recently re-introduced a comprehensive economic sanction on Iran. One of the notable impacts of the sanctions, particularly economic sanctions, is that on international arbitration. Sanctions are essentially built on the notion of the protection of public interests, and public interests are some of the few grounds upon which recognition and enforceability or arbitral awards may be rejected. However, jurisprudence on such conflict between sanctions and arbitral awards have not been sufficiently addressed in Korea because court case and administrative decision records on this conflict have not been sufficiently accumulated. In this regard, this paper begins with offering a survey of the concept of public interests, economic and trade sanctions, arbitral awards and their enforceability, and the relationships between them. It then examines the mechanism upon which public interests, trade and economic sanctions may lead certain arbitral awards unenforceable. Next, the paper suggests judiciaries' balanced approach toward the public interests protected by trade and economic sanctions and the predictability and fairness in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Finally, this paper concludes with the methods of the implementation of such balanced approach.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2024

"Arbitration" is a procedure to settle a dispute over property rights or disputes based on non-property rights that the parties can resolve through a reconciliation, not by a judgment of a court, but by an award of an arbitrator, and is a kind of Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). Arbitration is the most representative and efficient ADR system in many fields, so by activating it, disputes can be resolved smoothly and ultimately, and social costs caused by a heavy increase in lawsuit can be reduced. Arbitration costs are often evaluated as 'cheap', but in reality, they can be similar to or exceed litigation costs. Nevertheless, unlike the Civil Procedure Act, which stipulates the litigation aid system for those who are hard to pay litigation costs, the Arbitration Act or the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act does not have the arbitration aid system for those who are hard to pay arbitration costs. However, considering ① the utility of arbitration compared to other dispute resolution procedures, such as litigation, ② the possibility of resolving trial delays through vitalizing arbitration, ③ the need to guarantee access to arbitration, ④ the feasibility of revitalizing arbitration by the arbitration aid system, it is necessary to introduce the Arbitration Aid System. To explain the details of the Arbitration Aid System, a person who intends to apply for arbitration or a party who continues arbitration could be the applicant. Regarding the judge, this paper suggests the establishment of a council for arbitration aid to prevent the possibility of prejudgment by the arbitral tribunal. Also, if the council accepts the application for arbitration aid, it would be appropriate for the arbitral tribunal to determine the allocation of arbitration costs considering the decision of the council and to include it into arbitral awards.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.144-161
• /
• 2016

A unanimous Award has been issued on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China. The current security issues in the regional sea shall be carefully reflected to anticipate whether the Award could resolve the existing political conflict or rather will grow military tension in the region. The Award clearly directs the scope of delimiting maritime jurisdiction to coastal States in the Southern China sea, so it seems to help facilitating finding resolutions of regional disputes on maritime boundaries. On the other hand, there are several limitations in reality to implementation of the decisions included in the Award. USA could use the decisions to restrict military activities and exercise of unilateral maritime jurisdiction by China in the region, while China shall encounter guilt to illegitimacy of its activities as well as shaking the legal foundation of its policy in the region. Then the resolution of this dispute through application of international law would rather cause more political confusion. The intension of bringing the case to an international court were to resolve political difficulties. If, however, the political difficulties are not properly reflected in the legal decisions, such decision would possibly raise more political risks.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2016

There is a need for disputes in sports to be settled by arbitration rather than a court ruling, taking the unique characteristics of sports into consideration. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). A dispute resolution system is regarded as: an arbitrator is selected by the agreement between the parties, and a binding decision is made, which the parties obey, consequently resulting in a final resolution. To resolve a dispute upon arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement upon the free will of the parties. In relation to the arbitration agreement, however, there are some cases in which sports organizations have an arbitration clause in the articles of association, regulations or player registration application that call for settling disputes by arbitration. In such cases, the validity of the arbitration agreement may create doubt whether or not this sort of arbitration has been made by mutual agreement. Consequently this is required to be legally examined. The activities of a sports organization are recognized as part of private autonomy, and they include even the rights that establish regulations or rules. Nonetheless, the powers that such sport organizations are able to establish are not allowed without limit. However, sports activities and autonomy shall be protected as themselves. Therefore, if we give priority to arbitration upon the independent arbitrator and fair process by establishing an independent arbitral organization in charge of sports disputes to handle the effective resolution of disputes and protect sports autonomy and ask for a court decision if one party disobeys the arbitration, or the sports arbitration prepositive principle, it seems helpful to resolve the unfairness of compulsory jurisdiction and the clause for sports arbitration and protect the player's right of choice and of claims for trial.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2010

Independent guarantee is a creation of the need from the both sides, i.e. the applicant (principal debtor) and the beneficiary (creditor). The former used to have to deposit cash in favor of the beneficiary in case of his default, which laid a burden on his liquidity while the latter still wanted to have the equivalent to cash. Independent guarantee satisfied the both parties by freeing the applicant of a deposit and maintaining the beneficiary's right at the same time. The fact that independent guarantee has three payment mechanisms is not widely known to the public. They are (i) payment on first demand, (ii) payment upon submission of third-party documents, (iii) payment upon submission of an arbitral or court decision. From the applicant's point of view, the order in his favor is (iii), followed by (ii) and (i). As there shouldn't be a case where one party is at a disadvantage against the other, useful insight is being sought for the benefit of the applicant. First, the applicant can offer his intention to provide a payment mechanism (ii) or (iii) rather than (i) if he must deliver it. Second, if the beneficiary still wants to have (i) and the applicant is in a position not to reject it, the latter should thoroughly check any provisions that may work against him later. Third, the applicant could use counterbalancing provisions in underlying contract to cope with protective clauses in the guarantees. Forth, the applicant should review the beneficiary's sincerity to prevent unfair calling risks. The applicant may use an ECA(Export Credit Agency) in his country to which he can transfer not only unfair calling risks, but also political risks. On the other hand, a bank needs to keep the following advice in mind. The foremost important thing for the bank not to forget is that it provides a guarantee as a service provider, not as a responsible party for the feasibility of the project, etc. Credit risk of the applicant should require the greatest attention when issuing a guarantee: the bank should look into the possibility that it can procure immediate reimbursement from its customers after payment to the beneficiary. Second, the applicant's ability to complete the project should be reviewed by checking its track records, techniques and reputation, etc. Third, the bank may also use an ECA to cover the beneficiary's unfair calling risks as well as political risks. In the case of Korea, as Korea Export Insurance Corporation(KEIC) can cover all the risks mentioned above, the bank could use its service called 'Export Bond Insurance.' What's better for the bank is that ECA cover can enhance the bank's asset quality by putting it zero on its risk weighted asset.