• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.55-85
• /
• 1998

Each of China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea is in international trade one of the major countries in Asia and has been influenced by the Chinese character culture and the Civil law system. All these countries have their own commercial dispute resolution system for international trade dispute and commercial arbitration mechanism in their countries. They are making their own effort to internationalize and improve their commercial arbitration system. Among these countries China enacted a new arbitration law already. At that time Chinese arbitration law was referred to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration for internationalization of Chinese commercial arbitration system. China also internationalized the panel of arbitrators by increasing the foreign arbitrators of the panel of arbitrators of CIETAC. These measures adopted by China will be the model of dispute resolution and the commercial arbitration system in other major countries in Asia.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.35-60
• /
• 2017

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings: Arbitration is generally faster and more inexpensive (cheaper) than litigation in court. The Republic of Korea enacted the "Arbitration Industry Promotion Act" to develop arbitration. This law provides for the establishment and operation of arbitration institutions, training of arbitration experts, and support of arbitration studies and international exchanges. Effective operation of an arbitration institution has an important influence on the development of arbitration. Neutral and good arbitration experts improve the authority of arbitration. The academic study of arbitration theoretically develops the arbitration procedure. In addition, this paper referred to some additional factors that South Korea should have in order to become an attractive place of arbitration. Neutrality and fairness of the court of arbitration are highly important factors in arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration institution should be operated independently and clearly from the government to ensure neutrality and fairness. The parties of arbitration should also be free and able to defend their interests sufficiently in the arbitration proceedings. Lastly, coordination between this law and other laws is necessary.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.197-227
• /
• 2009

This study describe the brief history and current statutes of Philippine arbitration. The practice of arbitration in the Philippines can be traced as far back as the barangay. From 1521, Spanish Civil Code became effective in the Philippines. During this period, the Supreme court was discouraged by the tendency of some courts to nullify arbitration clauses on the ground that the clauses ousted the judiciary of its jurisdiction. According to the growing need for a law regulating arbitration in general was acknowledged when Republic Act No.876(1953), otherwise known as the Arbitration Law, was passed. In 1958, the Philippines became a signatory to the New York Convention and in 1967 the said Convention was ratified. But no legislation has been passed. As a consequence, foreign arbitral awards have sometimes been deemed only presumptively valid, rather than conclusively valid. Fifty years after, the Philippine Congress enacted, Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise know as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. The enactment was the Philippines solution to making arbitration an efficient and effective method specially for international arbitration. To keep pace with the developments in international trade, ADR Act of 2004 also ensured that international commercial arbitration would be governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration and also fortified the use and purpose of the New York Convention by specifically mandating. If the international commercial arbitration will be revitalization in the near future in the Philippine, it will be shown that the model law's comprehensive provisions will give the beat framework for arbitration.. The writer expect that Philippines continues in its effort to be the premier site for international arbitration in Southeast Asia.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.55-88
• /
• 2002

Arbitration Act does not have express provision about voluntary agreement for the arbitration which third party, that is, the expert confirms factual bases of party's relationship of rights and duties, determines contents of the contract, and supplements or modifies contracts, and then the parties obey the expert's decision, but it is more probable that the parties can agree to this kind of arbitration agreement as long as they freely make a contract within the scope of law. However, there is a split of authority on the scope of such arbitration agreement. Some scholars argue that the parties can only agree on the extent of the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract. On the other hand, the other scholars argue that the parties can consent not only the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of contract, but also the expert's supplement or modification of contents of contract. Due to the expert's decision has effect on both parties and judges who give a judgment as a matter of law, this kind of arbitration agrement can contribute to prevent litigation. Also arbitration relieves court's burden, if such arbitration agreement was done on the important disputes. Considering that the arbitration agreement can function as a dispute resolution or a dispute prevention, it is desirable that legislators make the provision about this kind of arbitration and allow the application of arbitration Act in such arbitration agreement. Most scholars agree that the voluntary agreement for the arbitration as to third party's supplement or modification of contents of the contract can be included in the concept of a substantive law. However, it has not been concluded whether the voluntary agreement for the arbitration which follows the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract has the nature of substantive law or procedural law. The dispute about the nature of such arbitration agreement have some shortcomings in the effect of second kind of voluntary arbitration and the applicability of procedural principles. Therefore, it will be more adequate that the focus is given to the original function of this kind of arbitration agreement and the applicability of procedural principles (the neutrality of arbitrator, the assurance of hearing of the parties) rather than the dispute regarding the nature of this kind of arbitration agreement. Considering that more attention is given to the substitutive dispute resolution these days, the function of arbitration as prevention to the litigation and resolution before the litigation should be emphasized. To do this, a legal dispute about such arbitration agreement has to be resolved. More important issues in this kind of arbitration agreement are to retain of the neutral expert and to positively inform the benefits of this institution to the public.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.1-31
• /
• 2014

The foundation of the arbitration jurisdiction is the arbitration agreement entered into by the parties to a contract. Usually, only the signatory parties to a contract and the disputes arising from a contract that includes an arbitration clause or to which the arbitration clause relates are the ones that can be submitted to arbitration. This article discusses some of the arguments for extending the arbitration clause in complex arbitrations, that is, in those cases where there are more than two parties, more than two contracts or more than two parties and contracts. Particularly, this paper addresses multiple contract arbitration when the contracts are related. One of the arguments used by the arbitral tribunal for the extension of jurisdiction is the existence of a link between the contracts. Additional arguments include implied consent, participation in the negotiation and performance of a contract and good faith. The article also discusses some of the typical cases of linked contracts in many civil law countries, such as subcontracts, third party beneficiaries and standard terms of contracts, from which arbitral jurisdictions problems may arise. Finally, special attention is given to Article 14 of the 2008 Peruvian Arbitration Law as the first provision in an arbitration law in Latin America that extends the arbitration agreement to non-signatory parties using for this a mixed approach.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.151-171
• /
• 2010

This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices In the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement, providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.337-372
• /
• 2003

Given the difficulties investors would encounter in pleading and proving their claims in court, they may well be better off in a system where less attention is paid to the law and more to the equities of the actual dispute before the arbitration panel. While this is not a system where accountability and predictability of results can be achieved, investors may fare better than they might expect. It follows then that if equitable considerations enhance rather than subtract from investors' chances of recovery, then investors need not worry about the consequences of the arbitrators' failure to apply the law. This article tracked the evolution of the arbitration process, through amendments to the pertinent securities arbitration codes of procedure, from an informal proceeding into a quasi-judicial one. Subsequently, I examined the practical difficulties arbitrators encounter in their efforts to apply the law. The Court in McMahon assumed arbitrators would apply the law and that the “manifest disregard” standard would provide sufficient judicial oversight to ensure that they did. But there is no meaningful review of arbitration awards to assure arbitrators are applying the law. Arbitration awards have no value as precedent for future arbitrations. Accordingly, there appears to be little reason to write such an award, particularly if the end result is an award immune from challenge no matter how the panel ruled. In these days, securities arbitration as a disputes resolution system is becoming a more popular practice. The trend of the courts in America has been to enforce arbitration agreements. Moreover arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. Therefore I think it would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system Compared to American practices, there could be, of course, many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be an assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us.