• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.97-122
• /
• 2013

Vietnam has become an attractive destination for foreign investors, but confidence in the country's legal system to resolve commercial disputes remains low. Reasons include the lack of an independent judiciary, the lack of published court decisions, and a tendency to criminalize civil disputes, among others. As such, arbitration has become a preferred alternative to litigation. On June 17, 2010, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a new act on commercial arbitration replacing the July 1, 2003 ordinance on commercial arbitration. The new act will take effect on January 1, 2011, and it is widely expected by the Vietnamese legal profession and lawmakers will create a favorable legal framework for the expansion of the arbitration service market in Vietnam. The new act is inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law of 1985 as are most new arbitration laws throughout the world. As opposed to the 2003 ordinance, the 2010 Act allows parties to request interim relief from the arbitrators. Also the new act eliminates the mandate that arbitrators be Vietnamese. The law has addressed the ordinance's shortcomings and reflects international standards. Commercial arbitration law is an important milestone in the improvement process of the laws on commercial arbitration in Vietnam. However, it is still too soon to affirm anything definitely because there remain many obstacles to the activation of arbitration. Rule of law and business cultural factors are important. The leading arbitral institution, VIAC, which is attached to the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is expected to play an important role for boosting the competitiveness of Vietnamese arbitration as an avenue to dispute settlement.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the effect of class arbitration under voyage charter with Asbatankvoy form. This study analyses the Stolt-Nielsen case as a data. In this case, One Class Rule requires an arbitrator to determine whether an arbitration clause permits class arbitration. The parties selected an arbitration panel, designated New York City as the arbitration site, and stipulated that their arbitration clause was silent on the class arbitration issue. The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award. But the Second Circuit reversed, holding that because petitioners had cited no authority applying a maritime rule of customs and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators' decision was not in manifest disregard of maritime law; and that the arbitrators had not manifestly disregarded New York law, which had not established a rule against class arbitration. However, the Supreme Court held, imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2004

The problems on application for custody in CIETAC Arbitration Rule are examined in this paper. First, The issue of jurisdiction for application for custody is arisen from the expansion of material jurisdiction of CIETAC. Until 1998, CIETAC had a jurisdiction only for the cases involving foreigners, but now, it has a jurisdiction not only for the cases involving foreigners but also for domestic cases. In the cases of arbitrating disputes involving foreigners, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an intermediate people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. But in the cases of arbitrating domestic disputes, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an ground-level people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. Therefore, "People's court" in article 23 of CIETAC Arbitration Rule includes both intermediate people's court and ground-level people's court in its meaning. Second, in the cases that the party concerned submits arbitration to CIETAC, it is not permitted for the party to ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. But there still can be the urgent cases that interests of the party concerned are at stake, and legitimate rights and interests of the party concerned may be damaged beyond remedy, if no application for custody of property is filed immediately. In that cases, even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Therefore, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. When revising laws and rules, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. When arbitration tribunal decides it, the procedural provisions executing it must be provided. It is also required that China permit to apply preservation of evidence as well as custody of property before submitting an arbitration. It is also strongly recommended that China permit custody of property or preservation of evidence even in the cases that an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.19-36
• /
• 2017

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the writing requirements of arbitration agreement. In order to discuss the legal aspects of writing requirement on arbitration agreement in the U.S., it is necessary to delve into both the contractual aspects of arbitration agreement and statutory specifications of the writing requirements of arbitration agreement. Statute of frauds and parole evidence rule were reviewed and employed to find legal implications on the writing requirement of arbitration agreement. Relevant cases were analyzed to verify how the courts have been responded to the conflicts regarding the validity of the arbitration contract with respect to writing requirement. International treaties absorbed into the U.S legal system were also reviewed and commented to analyze their implications on the writing requirement of arbitration agreement, including the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.131-149
• /
• 2010

Since the Arbitration Law of China took effect in 1995, arbitration has grown with the economy. At the end of 2009, there were 202 arbitration institutions in China. Among them, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) has adopted online arbitration and has settled internet domain name disputes since 2001. CIETAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center(DNDRC) has accumulated abundant experiences of online arbitration in the field of domain name disputes. Based on those experiences, on 1 May 2009, CIETAC implemented the CIETAC Online Arbitration Rules(Rules') to regulate the resolution of e-business disputes as well as other business disputes. With this background, this article aims to study the status quo, practices and issues of online arbitration conducted by CIETAC. For the purpose of the article, a general picture of online arbitration is outlined first, followed by introducing the steps of the online arbitration procedure. According to the 'Rules', the entire arbitration process is conducted using online communication methods which are cost-effective and efficient. To facilitate the development of online arbitration, legal barriers need to be removed. This article considers main legal issues of online arbitration in China and proposes amendment to Chinese Arbitration Law, in particular, the recognition of the validity of electronic arbitration agreements and awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this article is to make research on the meaning and function of the place of arbitration for, the international commercial arbitration. For this purpose is to analyse regal issue the meaning and function of the place of arbitration on the international commercial arbitration relating to the arbitration law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this Article is dealt with Art. 2 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act(KAA). The KAA corresponds with the connection to the place of arbitration, the internationally prevailing 'the principle of territoriality'. The place of arbitration is therefore great practical relevance, as there is not only the existing legal supplements on the arbitration procedure applies, but also in the state courts rule for the support and control of the tribunal are responsible. In this context, this article first intends the importance of the place of arbitration for determination of the applicable procedural law. Secondly, this article intends the importance of the place of arbitration for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under "the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards(New York Convention)". In conclusion, this article stresses, that the place of arbitration setting under Article 21 para. 1 KAA determine not only the applicable arbitration law, but also the jurisdiction of state courts in lawsuit for repeal of arbitration and qualification as a domestic or foreign arbitration award.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.125-144
• /
• 2007

The objective of this study is to find out whether Korean companies which are doing a lot of commercial transactions with Indian companies can consider appointing ICA as a trustworthy institution and using ICA arbitration rules as a governing arbitration rule, when a dispute between Korean companies and Indian companies occurs. Up to now, in the case of dispute with Indian companies, Korean companies are hesitant to utilize ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a alternative dispute resolution, owing to lack of understanding on its rules. But, it is obvious that Korean companies which come to have better knowledge on ICA and its rules may consider more positively using ICA as well as ICA arbitration rules as a dispute resolution rather than using other arbitration institutions like ICC and KCAB etc. in the case of disputes with Indian companies because ICA arbitration rules are very objective and similar to other arbitration rules like ICC rules as well as KCAB(Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) international arbitration rules which are frequently being used by Korean companies and also have other several advantages like cheaper cost of arbitration and fast track arbitration procedures. In conclusion, ICA and its rules can also be recommended as a public-trustworthy arbitration option if Korean companies want to resolve some dispute cases with Indian companies.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2013

Recently, many international arbitration institutions have responded to the business requirements of their users and have revised their rules to enhance the time and cost efficiency. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) revised the international arbitration rule in 2011, introducing new arbitration mechanisms like the expedited procedure. Also other Asian arbitration institutions introduced the expedited procedure in their international arbitration rules. Now expedited procedures are regarded as a very attractive system in the field of international arbitration. Accordingly, this paper reviewed the expedited procedures of four Asian countries, including China(CIETAC), Hong Kong (HKIAC), Singapore(SIAC) and Korea(KCAB). The purpose of this study is to find out meaningful implications to improve the Korean system. Based on this review, some recommendations are suggested as follows. First, the scope of the expedited procedure has to be adjusted upward than the current 200 million won. Second, there should be a fee schedule only for the expedited procedure. Third, in case of small amount international disputes, written examination should be more used in the expedited procedure. Finally, KCAB should make strong efforts to improve the awareness and usage of the expedited procedure in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.53-77
• /
• 2012

Competence-competence refers to an arbitratorpower to determine whether he or she has jurisdiction to decide a controversy. Although arbitrators power to rule on their own jurisdiction is generally recognized throughout the world, in the United States, neither the courts nor legislative bodies have recognized its significance or the reasoning behind its widespread adoption. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is notorious among arbitration statues for its failure to incorporate competence-competence. When courts rule on an issue of competence-competence, it is referred to as a question of who decides the arbitrability of the case. In the United States, the use of competence-competence as a term of art is still limited to scholarly writings. The answer to the competence-competence inquiry is found in an interpretation of section 3 of the FAA which empowers the courts to decide arbitrability issues. The cases of the Supreme Court and most commentators interpreted sections 2 and 3 of the FAA as conferring issues of arbitrability on the federal courts, including the ability to rule on the validity and scope of the arbitral agreement. Traditionally, United States courts have denied the competence-competence to arbitral tribunal. Recently, however, they have confounded the rules by placing primary importance on the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has underscored the necessity of giving full effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement to arbitrate. The result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on contractualism in determining the issue of arbitrability is most evident in the Courtdecision in the First Options case. Under First Options, courts are to decide arbitrability issues unless there is a clear and unmistakable contractual assignment of these issues to the tribunal itself. The Court is appraised that it has attempted to compromise between contractual freedom in the arbitration setting and the rule of law that is necessary in a society that depends on the concept of ordered liberty. In the decision in Howsam, the Court clarified the definition of arbitrability by attempting to draw a clear line between questions of arbitrability that are to be decided by courts and those matters that bear on the allocation of decisions between courts and arbitrators but are not questions of arbitrability.