• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.125-169
• /
• 2014

In France, arbitration, both domestic and international, has recently been subjected to a major reform. This article discusses the content of the 2011 reform and its aftermath, while putting into perspective the current arbitration act in South Korea, an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that contemplates reforming its own law. The two legal systems are characterized by their concern for efficiency and rationalization of the arbitration proceedings, through the codification of essential principles previously established by case law and through the promotion of the independence of this ADR vis-$\grave{a}$-vis state courts. The efficiency consideration is strengthened at every stage of the proceedings: from the arbitration agreement often considered valid and rarely challenged, through the proceedings for annulment, recognition and enforcement of the award, up to the judicial assistance of the French supporting judge towards the actual arbitral proceedings. Finally, new concerns are emerging: the increase of transparency and the arbitrability of disputes in some uncertain fields of law.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제29권
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2006

This writing is for the purpose of investigating the specific character and problem point of China arbitration system which has near 90 years history and overviewing the drift of system improvement which happens recently. The arbitration system of China which traditionally does not acknowledge ad hoc arbitration, unlike most of the other nations that employ The UNCITRAL model law and make it their own legislation, is restrictive to the parties concerned principle of private autonomy considerably. Also the independence of arbitration is delicate, because of a civil characteristic weakness of the arbitral institutions and the intervention of the courts on the arbitration procedure and award. The dual system of domestic and international arbitration which maintains after enforcement of 1994 arbitration law is often to be a primary factor interrupting the development of Chinese arbitration system and making it vulnerable to challenges. The system improvement demand of the recent time reflects this point and makes the arbitration system of China to a international standard rather than now, so it is a desirable direction for China to be as the member of the world economy to be globalization.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• 대한전자공학회논문지SD
• /
• 제47권5호
• /
• pp.80-86
• /
• 2010

전형적인 버스 시스템 구조는 공용버스 내에 여러 개의 마스터와 슬레이브, 아비터 그리고 디코더 등으로 구성되어 있다. 복수의 마스터가 동시간대에 버스를 이용할 수 없으므로, 아비터는 이를 중재하는 역할을 수행한다. 아비터가 어떠한 중재방식 을 선택하는가에 따라 버스 사용의 효율성이 결정된다. 기존의 중재 방식에는 Fixed Priority 방식, Round-Robin 방식, TDMA 방식, Lottery 방식 등이 연구되고 있는데, 버스 우선권이 주로 고려되어 있다. 본 논문에서는 마스터별 버스 점유율을 연산하는 블록을 이용하는 버스중재 방식을 제안하고, TLM(Transaction Level Model)을 통해 다른 중재 방식과 비교하여 성능을 검증하였다. 성능분석 결과, 기존의 Fixed Priority 방식과 Round-Robin 방식은 버스점유율을 설정할 수 없었으며 기존의 TDMA, Lottery 중재방식의 경우에는 100,000 사이클 이상에서 사용자가 설정한 버스점유율과 비교하여 각각 최대 50%, 70%의 오차가 발생하였다. 반면에 점유율 고려 중재방식의 경우에는 약 1000 사이클 이후부터 사용자가 설정한 버스점유율과 비교하여 1% 이하의 오차를 유지하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2014

As all aspects of international activity have kept growing in good transaction, transnational investments, joint ventures, and the licensing of intellectual property, it is inevitable for disputes to increase across national frontiers. International disputes can be settled by arbitration and ADR. In the situation presented in the paper, any dispute shall be finalized by arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex has become the principal method of resolving disputes in trade, commerce, and investment in accordance with the "Agreement on South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). But the follow-up measures of the said agreements have not been fulfilled. Some prerequisite measures of the Inter-Korean commercial arbitration must be satisfied. In order to proceed with arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, we need to ask the following: Does the status of an arbitrational matter? Should an agreement to arbitrate contain a choice of law clause? Should one provide for one arbitrator or three? How should the arbitrators be selected? What is the relation between party-appointed arbitrators and the presiding arbitrator (neutral arbitrator)? Do arbitrators compromise more than the litigation? Can conciliation be combined with arbitration? To execute the enactment of arbitration regulations, the contents of the Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (South) and the Korea International Trade Arbitration Committee (North), together with the Korean Arbitration Act and External Arbitration Act of North Korea and the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and UNCITRAL l Arbitration Rules are reflected in the Rules. There are many aspects of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration. It is essential to understand key elements; namely, the arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitrator, arbitral proceeding and arbitral award, and enforcement and setting aside of arbitral award. This research deals with five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the introduction. Chapter 2 deals with trade volume between South and North Korea and the kinds of dispute in Gaeseong. Chapter 3 addresses contents and follow-up measures of the agreement on the "South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). Chapter 4 features the problems and tasks of the pertinent agreements. Chapter 5 gives the conclusion. Enabling parties to find an amicable solution to the dispute in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex can lead to a useful and appropriate framework either through direct negotiation or by resorting to conciliation or mediation in accordance with pertinent agreements and follow-up measures contained in the agreements.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.99-128
• /
• 2014

Last year, Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center(SIDRC) was set up to facilitate and promote international arbitration in Korea. This study was focused on the revision of arbitration rules such as ICC, SIAC, HKIAC and JCAA. As a leading arbitration institution in the world, ICC has tried continuously to provide more efficient service to their client by adopting emergency arbitrator(EA) & multi party arbitration. Other three institutions also introduced almost same mechanism to compete each other. These two new system is very innovative in international arbitration. First of all, EA was designed to provide interim measure service to preserve or protect parties' right before the constitution of arbitral tribunal. Arbitration institutions and arbitral tribunals should be careful to decide these requests are legitimate or not because too hasty approval on joinder or consolidation without full consideration such as parties' intention or argument may issue another serious problem - setting aside an award rendered after joined or consolidated.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권40호
• /
• 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.