• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.95-107
• /
• 2017

Mongolian government enacted the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law to modernize the practice of commercial arbitration. Nevertheless, the Foreign Trade Arbitration Trade Law fell short on a number of fronts and arbitration itself remained a distant second option to litigation within Mongolia. Law on Arbitration of 2003 aimed to modernize the Mongolian arbitration framework so that it would mirror the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. At the same time, the Law on Arbitration 2003 made a conscious decision to deviate from international norms with respect to certain aspects in order to accommodate for the unique circumstances and characteristics of Mongolia. For example, unlike its UNCITRAL counterpart, the Law on Arbitration of 2003 did not include an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In that sense, the Law on Arbitration of 2003 was a resounding success and a drastic improvement on the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law. These factors convinced the Mongolian government to once again revise its arbitration law. This process, which started in 2008 with the help of foreign law firms and institutions, ultimately culminated in the Law of Arbitration of 2017. The chief objective of the Law of Arbitration of 2017 was to more closely adhere to preexisting international norms on arbitration such as the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and there is no question that Mongolia has succeeded in doing so. This article thus concludes by explaining some of the noteworthy improvements made by the 2017 revisions, and by noting that Mongolia is now equipped with a truly international legal framework for arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.81-119
• /
• 2006

The parties in the trade can have full autonomy and can resolve disputes independently, impartially and without delay by selecting arbitration by agreement. Korea and Japan had revised their Arbitration Laws to incorporate as many provisions of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as possible. Japan had amended its century-old arbitration law, becoming the 45th country to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on International commercial arbitration. New Arbitration Law was enacted as Law No.138 of 2003 and effective on March 1, 2004, is applicable to both national and international arbitration. Korea had amended its arbitration law on December 31, 1999 and its New Arbitration Law incorporates the most of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as Japan. Arbitration must be popular in resolving international commercial disputes in Northeast Asian bloc in order to increase the volume of intra-trade in the Northeast Asian bloc. But in order for the parties to make use of arbitration in the bloc, the arbitration laws of nations in the bloc must have similarity and unification. As Korea and Japan playes important roles in the bloc, both nations's arbitration laws must be studied in view of similarity and difference to unify both nations' arbitration laws by way of showing an example. Therefore, this paper deals with both nations' arbitration laws in view of comparative law to unify their arbitration laws and Northeast Asian Nations' arbitration laws.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2012

China instituted arbitration law on September 1, 1995, after having legislated the law under the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, Chinese arbitration law has some problems related to the effectiveness of its arbitration agreement, unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law. Thus, parties in dispute who want to settle a dispute based on Chinese arbitration law as governing law have more to take into consideration because there could be serious problems related to the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, this paper attempted to analyze the classification of jurisdiction related to the authorization of effectiveness in arbitration agreement of arbitral organization and Chinese, verify the problems, and suggest the solutions. Moreover, the author tried to verify the problems in applying the law related to the authorization of effectiveness in Chinese arbitration agreements and suggest some improvements. This paper also suggests improvements and problems related to the selection of arbitral organizations among several conditions for effective arbitration agreement in Chinese arbitration law. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures related to arbitrations agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.29-49
• /
• 2021

The Chinese Arbitration Law came into force in 1995 and has been implemented for 26 years. As a party to the New York Convention, there are many contradictions and conflicts between the Chinese Arbitration Law and the New York Convention on the issue of ad hoc arbitration, and this institutional disconnection can bring about problems such as misalignment of arbitration powers. On July 30, 2021, China's Ministry of Justice published a draft of the revised Arbitration Law for public consultation, and the draft has generated a lively debate among the public. This article explores the reasonable and inadequate points of the draft of Arbitration Law in light of the recent trends in the use of commercial arbitration in China, the COVID-19, the Free Trade Zone, and the relationship between the Civil Code and the Arbitration Law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2011

The agreement to arbitrate is a central feature of commercial arbitration and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement is recognised as a reason why any arbitral award may not be recognized as binding by the courts or may be set aside. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement. Most arbitration laws only require an arbitration agreement to be "in writing". But the arbitration law of the China require an arbitration agreement shall contain the following: 1. The expression of application for arbitration. 2. Matters for arbitration. 3. The arbitration commission chosen. And China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement are somewhat different from the other nations.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2015

Arbitration clauses or institutional arbitration rules rarely, if ever, specify the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. A wide range of laws may thus govern this question, such as the law at the place of arbitration, the law where the agreement or the award is enforced or the law of the main contract between the parties. It is also conceivable that international uniform law or soft law may play a role. Tribunals and courts seized with this question must consequently decide which of these various laws shall apply to verify the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. This paper picks up on this controversially debated conflict of laws issue. At times, this debate is characterized by a strong divide between arbitration and international trade law practitioners. But are the different approaches really leading to diverging results in arbitral practice?

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2015

There are three categories of arbitration - domestic arbitration, foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitration. Although the meaning of foreign arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration is different, they are used to mean the same in practice. In fact, there is significant controversy about the meaning of non-domestic arbitration because it is too difficult to distinguish between non-domestic arbitration and domestic arbitration. In the Chinese arbitration system, there are two main laws,Chinese Arbitration Law and Chinese Civil Procedure Law. Chinese Arbitration Law regulates the internal matters, while Chinese Civil Procedure Law regulates the external legal regulations. After the 2012 revised Chinese Civil Procedure Law, a number of laws and regulations have been revised, and almost every Arbitrations Rules have been revised, and will be in effect in 2015. Depending on the nationality of arbitration, the applicable laws will be different. The nationality of arbitration is so important that this paper will pay more attention to it. Although the case in China has no precedent effect, it is so important to the parties that this paper will address it. This paper will analyze the process and the cases of the recognition and enforcement of the award system in China.

• 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.16 no.3
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.495-522
• /
• 2016

The Mongolia is one of the highly impressive potential developing countries in Asia according to open the economic market. Since early 1990 as the falling apart from Russian union, Mongolia has tried to developing economic status with plentiful stocked natural resources in their country. The Mongolia has been accepting the modernizing their legal systems including national amended law of arbitration 2003 which was based in the 'UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985' to harmonize with the international arbitration trends. However, UNCITRAL council announced the adapting members countries excluding Mongolia caused by the inappropriate international standard conditions. As the foreign business partners with Mongolian, it is not easy to agree a site in Mongolia for the place of arbitration on their disputes settlement cause by the weak confidence and precarious interruption under the arbitration processing and enforcement of award on the uncertain law of arbitration on their law of arbitration. Recently, the Mongolian government intends to revise their arbitration law to comply to newly UNCITRAL Model Law in 2006 revision for improving the putting confidence and promoting the choosing arbitration on the place of commercial disputes in Mongolia. It is the point to considering in this article to compare to the problems and alternative ways to the legal and practical arbitration services for reliant and confirming arbitration system in Mongolia for the business parties of Korea.