• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2012

Arbitration provides quicker resolution and may also limit the erosion of business relationships that is often the result of prolonged litigation. The process of arbitration typically involves four phases: 1) selection of arbitrator(s) and opening statement of positions by the parties; 2) rebuttal of opposing positions; 3) interviews, hearings, and information gathering; and 4) rendering of a decision and issuance of the arbitrator's award. A distinctive feature of arbitration is the party's ability to select the arbitrator and the process and rules that will be followed at the hearing. Once that process has been completed, the parties are in the hands of the arbitrator or tribunal. The arbitrator's duty goes on the arbitration procedure efficiently and renders arbitration award. This article discussed various ways the arbitrator leads to a shorter, less risky arbitration, which benefits the parties. We recommend the arbitrator the following comments; Before the hearing the arbitrator decides to whether an arbitration agreement is valid, and a scope of authorities of him in advance. In the hearing, the arbitrator gives both parties a sufficient opportunity to produce evidence, witnesses, and make their arguments. Lastly, the arbitrator need to be cautious in guiding the parties toward an amicable settlement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is a private and contractual means of dispute resolution. As a creature of contract, any particular arbitration owes its existence-and attendant limitations-to an arbitral agreement. This means that, in practice, the parties select their own judges, forum, and rules. By agreeing to arbitration, parties hope to achieve several goals. And arbitration has proven to be quicker, cheaper, and more predictable than litigation as a means of resolving many types of claims. As a primary method of conflict resolution, it is now worthwhile to consider carefully any procedural mechanism designed to promote the central aims of this alternative to litigation. It is helpful to frame any particular analysis according to (1) the type of decision for which preclusive effect is sought (arbitral award or court judgment) and (2) the type of subsequent proceeding in which preclusion is sought (an arbitration or a litigation). Res judicata may well bar litigation of that claim between the parties, but non-parties (affiliates or individuals) will not benefit from this bar unless the arbitral tribunal makes findings sufficient to satisfy the elements of collateral estoppel. The final permutation to be considered involves an arbitral award's preclusive effect on a subsequent arbitration. Whether a prior court decision should preclude issues or claims in a subsequent arbitration presents the easiest case for analysis. It is the easiest primarily because there is generally little room to debate whether adequate procedures were followed in a litigation. That is, one can safely assume that the rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure were followed and that formal records sufficiently memorialize both the proceeding itself and the ultimate decision. Procedural regularity is mentioned not necessarily because it is an analytic tool, but because so many jurists and scholars see it as an impediment to the application of preclusionary doctrines.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권3호
• /
• pp.147-166
• /
• 2020

As the volume of trade between Korea and Vietnam increases, the number and amount of commercial disputes between Korean and Vietnamese companies are increasing. In the case of Vietnam, due to differences in the arbitration system and norms due to the socialist state system, foreign companies lack confidence in the settlement of disputes through commercial arbitration in Vietnam. At this point, it is necessary to not only discuss commercial disputes and settlements, but also to closely review and understand Vietnam's commercial dispute settlement system. Therefore, this study examines the current status and characteristics of Vietnam's commercial disputes and analyzes the actual problems of Vietnam Commercial Arbitration System that arise through the arbitral award of the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC), Vietnam's representative arbitration agency, and precedents on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in Vietnamese courts. In the end, this study seeks to revitalize the Vietnam Commercial Arbitration so that each disputed party may quickly deal with the commercial disputes, and seeks a more smooth solution through commercial arbitration in future trade claims between Korean and Vietnamese companies.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2017

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party's autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court's judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2012

Judgment on the validity of patents on the subject of an arbitration does not. In other words, the occurrence of patents generated by the administrative action, and such administrative action by an authorized agency may be treated as legitimate until it is canceled. However, recent Supreme Court judgment on novelty and inventive step as well as judgments about the validity of the patent also made possible by the judiciary. This progress even in the mediation of an arbitral award which is premised on the validity of patents can be seen that possible. However, if the arbitration by an arbitrator if possible a certain portion of the limit exists. In other words, the effect of arbitration between the parties is valid. This patent is valid and invalid in arbitration even if the judgment relative to the effect ceases. In addition, the arbitration award and patent invalidation trial is in progress at the same time, if you consequently will reach a different conclusion. This can cause problems of double track. In addition, by extending the critical target recognition and enforcement in other countries can cause problems. Despite these problems, now about the validity of patents that it is possible intervention is necessary to discuss again.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.113-146
• /
• 2005

Bankruptcy proceedings serve the purpose of the collective satisfaction of the debtor's creditors through the realisation of the debtor's assets and the distribution of the proceeds therefrom. Upon the adjudication bankruptcy, the debtor's right to administer and dispose of the property belonging to the bankruptcy estate shall be vested in the administrator. If a mutual contract was not or not completely fulfilled by the debtor and the other party at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy, the administrator has right to choose wether to fulfil or terminate the contractual relation. Legal acts that have been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy and that are detrimental to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. However, these effects of bankruptcy will have not great influence on the arbitration agreement between the debtor and another party. An arbitration agreement that has been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy is binding the administrator as an universal legal successor of debtor. Only the arbitration agreement directly disadvantageous to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. Furthermore, it is not at the discretion of administrator whether or not to submit the dispute to arbitration because an arbitration agreement does not belong under the category of Art. 50 Korean bankruptcy Act which demands a mutual contract. Arbitral proceeding upon the property of the bankruptcy estate and pending for the debtor as plaintiff or against the debtor as defendant at the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy may be taken up at the given status by the administrator. This leads to a change of the party. If a duly summoned party fails to appear in arbitration court, the arbitrator, if satisfied there is no valid excuse, may continue the proceedings and make the award as if all the parties were present. This may be disadvantagious to the debtor's creditors because the arbitral award have the same effects on the participants as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. Even if there is a change of party on side of debtor to the administrator in bankruptcy, the arbitral proceedings will not be automatically postponed or suspended. The matter of how to proceed is at discretion of administrator, when the parties haven't agree on the arbitral proceedings. He can continue the arbitral proceedings without to grant an adjournment of hearing. However, an arbitration award may be challenged by a party dissatisfied and set aside by the court based upon the misconduct that violates the basic rights of the parties to a fair hearing. The arbitrator must treat the parties equally in the arbitral proceedings and give each party a full opportunity to present his case. The arbitrator, therefore, will carefully exercise his discretion in determining whether to continue the arbitral proceedings or to grant a postponing. In the practice, the arbitral proceedings may be usually postponed to grant due process.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.103-127
• /
• 2008

This paper is to research the powers and interim measures of the arbitral tribunal in the arbitral proceedings of the international commercial arbitration under arbitration legislation and arbitration rules including the UNCITRAL Model Law and Arbitration Rules. The powers of the arbitral tribunal may be found within the arbitration agreement or any arbitration rules chosen by the parties, or the chosen procedural law. The power of the arbitral tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction is one of the fundamental principles of international commercial arbitration. It is a power which is now found in nearly all modern arbitration and rules of arbitration. Where an arbitral tribunal has been appointed then it will usually have the power to proceed with the arbitration in the event that a party fails to appear. It cannot force a party to attend but it may sanction the failure. While the arbitral tribunal can direct the parties to attend and give evidence the arbitral tribunal has no power to compel a party to give evidence. The arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitration in the absence of the party or its failure to submit evidence and make an award on the evidence before it. Under most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules, the arbitral tribunal has the power to appoint experts and obtain expert evidence. The power to order a party to disclose documents in its possession is a power given to the arbitral tribunal by many national laws and by most arbitration rules. The arbitral tribunal cannot, however, compel disclosure and in the case where a party refuses to disclosure documents then the sanctions that the arbitral tribunal can impose must be ascertained from the applicable rules or the relevant procedural law. A number of arbitration rules and national laws allow for the arbitral tribunal to correct errors within the award. Most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measure of protection. Article 17(1) of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 states: Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant interim measures. Interim measures of protection usually take such forms as (1) conservatory measures intended to prevent irreparable damage and maintain the status quo; (2) conservatory measures intended to preserve evidence or assets. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the arbitral tribunal must have the powers necessary to make interim measures effective. The Article 17 B of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 provides applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders. And the Article 17 H provides recognition of enforcement of interim measures. In conclusion, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of the UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 would contribute significantly to the security of the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. Therefore, Korean Arbitration Law and Arbitration Rules would be desirable to admit such revised articles with regard interim measures.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The CISG does not stipulate the subject of the burden of proof, and in the arbitral award, the buyer is liable for proof compared to the seller for nonconformity of the product. Without a unified interpretation of the burden of proof of non-contractual goods, confusion of uncertainty may increase if the parties to the sale contract have a dispute due to the trade in goods. It is an important issue to create a unified regulation on this because the courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of the CISG interpret and apply the "seller's obligation to conform to the goods contract" stipulated in this Convention in various ways. In this study, in the case of international Sales of Goods there is a tendency to prefer arbitration through arbitration agencies in the dispute, so the subject of burden of proof is analyzed through arbitration cases applied by CISG as the governing law. Most international commodity trading around the world is regulated by this Convention, but according to the rigid convention regulations, it is analyzed and interpreted through cases where this convention is applied to each country's international arbitration, suggesting the need for a rigid CISG revision.