• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2016

This study primarily concerns the cases recently held as to the formation of contract under the CISG. In order to put forward the most plausible direction to interpret the rules on the formation of contract under the CISG, it particularly deals with the followings. First, it scrutinizes the rules on the formation of contract, focusing on the requirements of offer and acceptance, the time when such offer and acceptance become effective, the issues on the battle of forms. Second, it introduces two recent interesting cases regarding the formation of contract and provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intend to conclude a contract under the CISG as a governing law. The followings are practical points that the parties should consider when they enter into contract. First, as any signature or intial made in the offer could be regarded as an acceptance, the parties are required to clarify the meaning of such signature or initials before the conclusion of contract. Second, it is not necessarily required one's signature for an offer to become effective but his name. Third, standard terms cannot be incorporated into the contract simply by reference to web-page or other documents. In order for such terms to be incorporated, it may be necessary to enclose them in the offer or to bring the other party's attention to them. Forth, one should remember that an acceptance by act become effective not when such act is complete, but when it is performed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.61-104
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this work aims to analyse the principles of good faith under international transaction with CLOUT and UNILEX cases. Article 7(1) CISG sets the stage for the interpretation by promoting a uniform approach using good faith and the international charter of the convention. In other words, article 7(1) defines the purpose and the principle of interpretation and is applied to the Convention as a whole. As such, it also includes article 7(2), which goes beyond the big picture and settles the problems of gap filling. It is also important to understanding that the mandate of the CISG is to look for a solution, which is not only restricted to interpretation but extends to solving a problem. The problem in this work is to find out how gap filling is achieved and, because of the autonomous mandate of interpretation, to explain and understand its relationship with domestic law. The solution to the interpretation of article 7(2) must be found within the four corners of the CISG. To restate, article 7(2) describes two situations where gap filling is needed. First, if the matter is governed by the Convention but not expressly settled, then a gap must be filled in conformity with general principles on which it is based. Second, if the matter is not covered then the gap must be filled taking domestic law into consideration. There are two reasons why a matter may not be covered by the Convention. First and most obviously, it has been specifically exclude from the sphere of Application by the CISG itself, such as validity in article 4. Second, changes in business methods will lead to gaps. The United Nations has established a service known as CLOUT. This contains abstracts of hundreds of selected decisions of both courts and arbitration tribunals. And UNILEX is cosponsored by the Italian Centre for Comparative and Foreign Law Studies and UNIDROIT Contract Principles. The cases are in abstract format, but, when available, the full text of the case in the original language is also supplied.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.163-200
• /
• 1999

The CISG entrusts many problems to trade or practice : for example the problems which can't be compromised between civil law system and common law system ; the problems in which the application of usage or practice in universal ; the problems of rapid change according to trade circumstance. The purpose of this paper is to confirm whether the CISG is accomodating the usage or practice in its Text, and to find which topic is most closely related to usage or practice in CISG. The Article 9 in the CISG is a provision of usages or practices applicable to contract. But the problems of the CISG in the accomodation of usages or practices are that it lacks the definitions of ‘usage’ and ‘practices’, the CISG is not concerned with the validity of any usage according to Article 4, and the application of usage or practice may differ in litigation and arbitration The topics such as delivery of goods, payment of price and the transfer of risk are most closely related to usages and practices. The delivery of goods and the transfer of risk are determined by the trade terms like FOB or CIF. But the method of identification and the risk for the sale of goods in transit can't be determined by the trade terms in INCOTERMS(1990). So the CISG may serve as complementing role. In payment of price, the trade term does not refer to the time and place of payment. So the CISG may be the basis of interpretation. Likewise the usages and practices such as trade terms, UCP and so on, can be expected to play a significant role in complementing and interpreting the CISG.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2015

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.43-63
• /
• 2015

The number of final appeal(the rate of final appeal: 43%) has been on the increase every year over the past ten years in Korea. The number of final appeal cases given to a justice of the Korean Supreme Court amounts to nearly one everyday, which makes it vulnerable to faulty decisions. Reversal rate of final appeal is as low as 10% with most of the cases being dismissed and hence the percentage of people having trust in the judiciary is merely 27%. In this context, the Korean judiciary has announced its plan to set up a final appellate court in the Supreme Court. The establishment of final appellate court, however, is not only against the Constitution but also hardly seen in other nations. It would only overexpand the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the final appellate court would end up deteriorating into the court of fourth instance and impose extra burden on the government as well as on the disputing parties. Therefore, it is necessary to upgrade the quality of the court by increasing the number of judges in the lower court and let them focus on the fact finding process. Facilitating the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) process such as arbitration would help improve the structure of the judiciary. The incompatibility among the four values of the dispute resolution process(equitability, truth, quickness and efficiency) calls for building comprehensive judicial system in which disputes are settled by choosing either jurisprudence or utility.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2015

The insurer's right to take legal proceedings in the name of the assured against a third party who has caused loss of or damage to the goods is of particular importance in marine cargo insurance under international trade transaction. The amounts recovered in subrogation actions, known in practice simply as recoveries, form a significant element in the balancing of the cargo insurer's underwriting account by improving ing the loss record. However, even if the carrier involved in the accident have a liability for damages, in some cases can not claim damages in accordance with the after clauses and carrier's exemption clauses indemnity carrier under the contract of carriage. In recent, the dispute cases to argue damages claim of the carrier in connection with business practices of surrender B/L, the claim is dismissed cases in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the after clauses. In the future, the surrender B/L is continually to use as a marine transport method, it may also be interested in insurance subrogation of damages claims to insurance accident by a surrender B/L.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.57-84
• /
• 2009

This Study attempts to compare and analyze on Principle of Change Circumstances under th CISG, PICC and PECL which are covered international commercial contract. In many international commercial contract, time is very important because delays in performance are sanctioned heavily by substantial penalty clauses. When change in circumstances affects contract performance, the contract will often not be suspended or terminated. Therefore, principle of change circumstances is being prepared of fluidity of contract environment and its effect in general. Taking into consideration the problems relating to the renegotiation or adaptation in the cases of radical change of circumstances where the CISG applies, it is suggested that the contracting parties should make clear their intentions, that is, whether they will provide for the possibility of renegotiation where the price of goods has been altered by inserting a hardship clause or for the possibility of mutual discharge from liability in the cases of economic impossibility or hardship by inserting a force majeure clause. Such provision will be desirable especially in situations where there is a long term contract, the price of goods sold tends to fluctuate in the international commerce, or where especially in contracts subjected to arbitration, the parties subject their contract to legal sources or principles of supranational character. Therefore, this study has shown that the hardship provisions in the CISG, PICC and PECL has similarities to each a validity defense and an excuse defense. it was provisions that CISG governs this issue in Article 79, PICC Article 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and PECL Article 6.111.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor's alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor's investment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.69-118
• /
• 2007

In providing general medical treatments, the medical service contract between the patient and the doctor is the mutually responsible onerous contract. However, the nature of the mutually assumed contract standings of the patient and the doctor has been changing since the implementation of the national health insurance program. For instance, besides the cases of beyond excessive medical charges and medical negligence, if the doctor charged for his/her medical treatments violating the post-treatment/nursing cover criteria, the overpaid medical charge, regardless of being collected with the patient's consent, has to be refunded back to the patient. Medically needed aspects, treatment results, and unfair benefits favoring the patient are not at all taken into consideration in the health insurance scheme. This makes it easier for patients to get refunds for their share of the medical payments by involving the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service or the National Health Insurance Corporation, without engaging in civil law suits (for reimbursement claim) against doctors. In other words, the doctor's responsibility to provide medical treatments and the patient's responsibility to pay for the medical treatment provided within the contractual realm are being demolished by the administrational arbitration of the National Health Insurance system. The basic rights of medical service providers, and the patient's right to choose are as important constitutional rights, as the National Health Insurance program, which is essential in the social welfare system. Furthermore, the development of the medical fields should not be prevented by the National Health Insurance system. If the medical treatment services can be divided into necessary treatments, general treatments, and high quality treatments, the National Health Insurance is supposed to guarantee the necessary and general treatments to provide medical treatments equally to all the insured with limited financial resources. However, for the high quality treatments, it is recommended that they should not be interfered by the National Health Insurance system, and that they should be left to the private contract between the patient and the doctor.