• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.213-244
• /
• 2004

This article studied on international trade dispute of enforcement procedure of foreign arbitral awards at Korean Supreme Court, which is especially related to New York Convention article 5, The key points of most enforcement procedure were about public policy according New York Convention article 5, 2, b and New York Convention article 5, 1. Particularly, Judgement of public policy from Supreme Court represented that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award is to present and protect basic moral conviction and social order from spoiling, and not only domestic situation but also international stability of transaction should be taken into consideration in judging on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, which is construed under certain limitation. In this point, you should be understand the concept on refusal reasons in enforcing of foreign arbitral awards

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.131-152
• /
• 2018

On October 31, 2013, the Singapore Court of Appeals handed down a landmark decision in the case of PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International and Others [2013] SGCA 57. The case arose out of an arbitration in Singapore involving the Malaysian conglomerate Astro and the Indonesian conglomerate Lippo, which culminated in a USD 250 million award in favor of Astro. The final award was given to three Astro subsidiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, but who were joined in the arbitration pursuant to an application by Astro. Lippo then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the enforcement orders. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the High Court's decision, and found that Astro was only entitled to enforce the awards. Also, the Court of Appeals undertook a detailed analysis of the use of active and passive remedies to defeat an arbitral award at the seat and the place of enforcement, respectively. It also touches on the innovation of forced joinders of third parties in arbitrations, which have garnered significant interest in the arbitration community. This decision is therefore expected to have a significant impact on the practice of international arbitration, including in relation to how awards can be enforced or defeated, as the case may be.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.31-56
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this thesis lies on building the foundation for the further activation of trade among the Northeast Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and North Korea through an analytical comparison of their arbitration systems. Further activation of trade cannot be reached without previously building safety measures on the negotiation of exports, the control on defective imported merchandise, the returns on investments, and the stable management of businesses. Throughout this thesis an analytical comparison of these five countries' most important areas on arbitration will be carried out. These areas are the arbitration laws and organizations; the structures of the laws; scope of arbitration; form of arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitratiors, place of arbitration, hearing, court assistance in taking evidence, governing law, decision making by panel of arbitrators, form and contents of awards, effective of award, recourse against award, recognition and enforcement of awards. etc. It was found in each of the areas cases to be identical, similar or verydifferent; also, cases unable to arbitrate. This phenomenon was found to occur due to the differences in political and economic systems and perception of arbitration among these countries. Additionally, this thesis points out what should each country do for its integration. It is also suggested the organization of a common arbitration research body to continue the efforts for raising the awareness, building trust, and mutual recognition among the countries to ultimately create a common arbitration system. Lastly, it is a personal will that this thesis will serve as the starting point for in depth researches in each of the presented areas.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.315-350
• /
• 2010

The rapid growth of Korea-China trade that was since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992, led China to surpass the United States and Japan to become Korea's largest trading partner in 2009. "The largest trade" also means "the most disputes", so it is essential to study on dispute settlement and enforcement system of the two. Therefore, in order to make the traders correctly understand and use the arbitration as a dispute settlement method in both China and Korea, this article makes a comparative study on arbitration system between the two countries. And finally, it analyzes the enforcement situation of arbitral award in China, then provides the author's personal recommendations as a countermeasure against the poor enforcement system in China.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.28
• /
• pp.91-117
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine practical and legal considerations in the choice of the "Seat of Arbitration". As the selection of the "Seat of Arbitration" in an international commercial contract is vital both judicially and practically, so to speak, in terms of enforceability of award, judical interference in arbitration proceedings, relative convenience and expense, and the selection of arbitrators, the selection should be carefully considered and examined. In case of institutional arbitration, when the arbitration clause does not nominate the seat, the administrator or the secretariat of the institution or the arbitrator tribunal would usually determine the seat. On the contrary in case of ad hoc arbitration, Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the "Seat of Arbitration" would be determined according to the rules which are selected by parties or their arbitrators. To avoid confusing situation about the selection of the seat, this writer would like to recommend ICC or LCIA with each Standard Arbitration Clause. If the parties want any national arbitration institution because of the expenses incurred in international institution, AAA or CEPANI is recommendable in terms of the reputation, operating system and recognized performance. Specially ICC Court of Arbitration usually examines the award before it is issued, so the enforceablity would go up. Thus when the parties lay down the arbitration clause in their contract they should confirm whether the "Seat of Arbitration" is fixed or not. If not, at least they should examine the arbitration rules which would be applied, and know in advance how the seat be determined.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.25-38
• /
• 2013

Confidentiality has always been considered one of the most important aspects of arbitral proceedings and until recently a principle that could never be ignored. However, under the shadow of the increasing number of arbitral cases in which States are involved, there has recently been a tendency towards publicity, not only in investment protection arbitrations but also in commercial arbitrations. That said, many questions arise: in the event of a conflict between confidentiality and publicity, which should prevail? What role does the arbitrator play in this conflict? Does confidentiality provide more benefits than harm.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.75-93
• /
• 2001

The advantages of arbitration such as promptness, economy and flexibility apply to the disputes arising from corporate governance between shareholders and a corporation. The confidentiality of arbitration can be particularly highlighted in the disputes among the members inside corporation. But it appears that the shareholders believe litigation the best way to pursue liabilities of managers of corporation and improve the system of corporate governance. And it is claimed that the current litigation system lacks the implementation of shareholders rights due to structural deficiency and therefore need bring class actions into the system of Korean jurisprudence. The OECD, which afforded the rescue finances to Korea, also recommended shareholder class actions as a way to improve corporate governance. Class actions have merits but even advanced countries consider the changes of existing system or only stay class actions in the stage of discussion. Rather, legal experts urge arbitration to be used more frequently and the Courts also approved the dispute resolutions of the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration. There is no report in Korea that arbitration was used to resolve the disputes between shareholders and the managers, or between shareholders and corporation, which is listed in the Stock Market. There only are the debates for bring class actions into the judicial system between NGOs and the organizations of corporate managers. But arbitration has greater advantages in resolving the disputes among the members of corporation that any other methods for dispute resolution. Arbitration can interpret flexibly the mandatory provisions of the Statutes of Security and the Code of Commerce to meet the needs of parties involved, which is not possible to the Courts. Arbitration can issue the award to meet the equity of the parties. And arbitration can avoid a resolution of All or Nothing by fully considering the specific situations of Korean corporations(such as family-dominated management) and can issue the award beneficial to all parties of shareholders, managers and corporation. Thus it should be sought to resolve the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration.