• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2010

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, arbitration, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, it will be important thing for arbitral institutions to reach an agreement to promote the dispute settlement of the commercial disputes, for which efforts have been made between the Korean Commercial Arbitral Board(KCAB) and principal arbitration institutions of the foreign countries. Since 1973, the KCAB has entered into many arbitration agreements with well-known foreign institutions of arbitration. If the place of arbitration is not so designated by the parties, it, as a general rule, shall be the country of the respondent(s) under the Korea-Japanese Arbitration Agreement. On the other hand, the U.S.-Korean Commercial Arbitration Agreement maintains 'Joint Arbitration Committee which finally decide the place of arbitration. In 1996, the Korea-Austria Agreement of Cooperation was concluded for the prompt and equitable settlement on an amicable basis of commercial disputes. Under this Agreement, arbitral institutions between Korea and Austria agreed to act as an appointing authority in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It is also very important for Korea and China including North Korea to cooperate each other for the settlement of the commercial disputes within the Pan Yellow Sea Economic Bloc(PYSEB). The PYSEB is quickly becoming a distinctive and crucial region in the world sharing geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Finally, it should be considered to establish a central common system for settlement promotion of the commercial disputes within the PYSEB through the arbitration agreement. Such a dispute resolution system was already introduced and established within the area of the NAFTA, and it is called the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2014

Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly new ADR process dating back to the 1970s. Med-Arb capitalizes on the advantages of both mediation and arbitration, while eliminating many of their disadvantages. Mediation has the advantage of allowing for resolutions rather than decisions. Arbitration has the advantage of guaranteeing that the matter will be resolved when the procedure is over. In Med-Arb, the participants agree to be parties to mediation, and if the mediation comes to an impasse, a final settlement will be reached through arbitration. This study first explicates the origin and the development of Med-Arb in the United States. This study shows that the emergence of Med-Arb is benefited from the fact that arbitration has lost its own advantages ie, speed, cost-saving, and maintenance of an ongoing relationship between the disputants. Second, this study analyzes four cases in which Med-Arb is applied to various kinds of disputes as a tool of dispute resolution: labor disputes, entertainment disputes, will disputes, and international commercial disputes, consecutively. All those case studies show the generality of Med-Arb as a dispute resolution channel. Third, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages of Med-Arb. Finally, this study discusses the implications of Med-Arb. In particular it provides the universality of this hybrid form of dispute resolution in the East and West. For example, we show that China has its own distinctive Med-Arb system, where it has developed from ancient Confucian philosophy. Japan also emphasizes the role of an arbitrator who settles the disputes in the course of arbitration. The domestic arbitration rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) have a similar process in that arbitration contains an element of conciliation. With regard to the universal characteristics of Med-Arb, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of Med-Arb at a deeper level in the future. One caveat is that it is necessary to handle the issues of the neutrality of the mediator-arbitrator.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.123-156
• /
• 2004

Settlement of investment disputes is quite different from that of commercial disputes arising from ordinary commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc.. Therefore, it is very important to consider the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States(Washington Convention) of 1965. The creation of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID), which was established under the Washington Convention, was the belief that an institution specially designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between governments and foreign investors could help to promote increased flows of international investment. Pursuant to the Washington Convention, ICSID provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is entirely voluntary. However, once the parties have consented to arbitration under the Washington Convention, neither can unilaterally withdraw its consent. Moreover, all Contracting States of the Washington Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce ICSID arbitral awards. Provisions on ICSID arbitration are commonly found in investment contracts between governments of member countries and investors from other member countries. Advance consents by governments to submit investment disputes to ICSID arbitration can also be found in many bilateral investment treaties including the Korea-China Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments(1992), the Korea-Japan Agreement for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment(2003) and the Korea-Chile FTA, the latter was signed as of February 15, 2003 and is still pending in the National Assembly for its ratification. Arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is similarly one of the main mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes under the bilateral treaties on investment. Therefore, it is a problem of vital importance that Korean parties interested in investment to foreign countries should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes under the Washington Convention and bilateral investment treaties.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 2015

Central Asian Countries had been independent in 1991 from USSR. Since then it have been increasing foreign trade and investment amount with outside countries including China, Japan, EU and South Korea. Korean enterprises and entities have endeavored to secure plentiful natural resources, oil and gas energy and expand the market share to exporting the consuming and industrial competitive goods and services for those countries. In the case of disputes of commercial transactions and investment, arbitration is regarded as a dispute resolution system which has been preferred in international transactions and investments by the business world. Since the collapse of the USSR, Central Asian Countries have worked to modernize its arbitration law and procedure to conform with international standard rules. Arbitral legislation in Central Asian countries is based on the Model Law as adopted in 1985. However, CIS's legislation systems of arbitration are not satisfied with the international standard in national laws and practices. That is the reason to consider for the specific parliament about arbitration for the dispute resolutions in the commercial transaction and investment between Korean enterprises and CIS. In this article, it is discuss problems and its alternatives in the dispute resolution about the commercial transaction and investment into Central Asian countries including the tendency to the increasing the trade volumes of goods and investment between South Korea and CIS. According to this article, South Korea consider the long term strategy followed the preferred economic relative partnership for business success on commercial transaction and investment with the Central Asian Countries.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권2호
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

본 연구는 신용장거래에서 불일치서류에 대한 은행의 지급거절통지의 절차를 한·중 판례를 중심으로 고찰한다. 한·중 무역거래 비중이 높은 상황에서 한국 기업과 신용장을 개설하는 우리나라 은행들이 서류심사 결과로서 지급거절을 통지함에 있어 주의해야 하는 사항들과 신용장 관련 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 방안에 대한 제언을 목적으로 한다. 본 연구에서 고찰한 판례는 중국 매도인이 개설은행을 상대로 중국법원에 소를 제기한 것으로, 개설은행의 지급거절통지가 UCP 600 제16조 (c)항 (ii) (iii)의 내용적인 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 판시한 중국법원의 판결이다. 본 판결을 볼 때, 우리나라 기업들과 신용장 개설은행들은 첫째, UCP 600 제16조 (c)항의 규정에 근거하여 하자에 대한 통지의 내용을 자세하게 기재해야 한다. 둘째, 신용장 계약에서도 무역계약 마찬가지로 준거법에 대한 합의를 명확히 하는 것이 필요하다. 셋째, 한·중거래에서 중국법원의 편파적인 판결과 더불어 외국법원의 판결이 중국에서 집행이 어려운 점을 감안해서 분쟁해결 방식으로 중재를 활용하는 것이다. 신용장 개설 시 중재조항을 삽입하여 법적인 효력을 갖도록 하고, 국제신용장중재센터나 DOCDEX 시스템을 활용하는 것을 권고한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2015

CISG provides a uniform framework for contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. In 2004 South Korea became the 63th State around world to adopt CISG. Starting next year CISG goes into effect as the law that governs the contracts for international sale of goods, in respect of which CISG displaces the existing domestic civil and commercial codes of Korea. By its provision Article 1(a), CISG applies directly between Contracting States without reference to private international law. As South Korea's biggest trade partners including China, the U.S. and Japan are also parties to CISG, the number of such direct applications continuously increases. Now it is estimated, though roughly, that CISG governs about two-thirds of Korea's import and export trade of goods. The private survey of the author shows that up to now in South Korea there are 39 court cases decided by the first instance courts, 29 cases by the appellate court and six cases by the Supreme Court of South Korea. In nearly all these cases, CISG applied directly. Furthermore, currently CISG is, in several respects, influencing upon the revision of Korean civil code which is designed to modernize it: The revised draft published in 2013 adopts the rules on the revocation of offers provided in articles 15 and 16, the rule on the termination of offers provided in article 17 and the rule on the time that an acceptance takes its effect provided in article 18 of CISG. More importantly, in accordance with the rules taken by CISG, the revision draft no longer requires the existence of fault or negligence on behalf of the breaching party in order for the aggrieved party to void the contract, and the revised draft denies the right of avoidance for trivial, not fundamental, breaches of contract.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.223-258
• /
• 2013

필자는 우주조약의 국제법적 의미에 관하여 첫째, 우주활동의 법원칙선언조항, 둘째, 세부조약으로 발전한 조항 그리고 마지막으로 우주조약의 보완사항에 관한 최근 동향으로 분류하여 설명하였다. 1963년 12월 13일 UN총회의 '우주법선언'을 반영한 우주조약은 그 세부조약으로 1968년 구조협정, 1972년 책임협약, 1975년 등록협약을 제정하였다. 2013년 5월 기준으로 102개국이 가입하고 27개국이 서명한 우주조약은 그야말로 우주법의 '마그나 카르타'(Magna Carta) 내지는 우주의 헌법이라고 불릴 정도로 우주법의 가장 기본이 되는 원칙을 담고 있고, 특히 달과 다른 천체를 포함한 우주를 비전유원칙인 '국제공역'(res extra commercium)으로 선언함으로서 우주에 대한 영유권 문제를 종식시켰다는 점에서 큰 의미를 찾을 수 있다. 우주조약이 제정된지 반세기가 되어가는 시점에서 우주조약에서 규정하고 있는 조항 중 우주활동은 모든 국가들의 이익을 위한다는 원칙(제1조), 외기권 우주의 자유로운 탐사와 이용(제1조), 전유화금지(제2조)와 타국의 권리존중(제9조)은 조약법은 물론 모든 국가들을 구속하는 국제관습법과 '강행규범'(jus cogens)으로까지 발전된 조항이라고 할 수 있다. 특히 우주조약은 투명성과 개방성을 규범적으로 요구하고 있다. 이것은 우주활동이 '전세계적 공공 이익'(global public interest)과 관련되어 있음을 시사하고 있다. 이러한 우주에서의 '전세계적 공공이익'에 대한 원리는 국제공동체에게 '대세적 의무'(obligation erga omnes)를 부과하고 있는데, 우주를 모든 인류의 영역이라고 선언한 점, 우주에서의 협력의 의무, 우주비행사를 인류의 사절이라고 한 점, 우주활동에서 해로운 오염을 피하라고 한 점, 우주활동을 국가, 사적 실체 그리고 정부간 조직체(IGOs)로 제한한 점, 우주활동으로 인한 손해배상에 대한 절대책임원칙, 우주에서의 핵무기 및 대량파괴무기 배치 금지, 우주활동의 공개성과 투명성 그리고 국제우주제도의 보편적 적용 등이 이를 뒷받침 해주고 있다. 현재 우주조약의 해석을 두고 많은 논란이 있는 조항들이 있고 제정당시 예상 못했던 우주기술의 발달과 상업화로 인해 보충해야 할 주제도 많이 생겨나서 현재 COPUOS 내에서 1979년 달조약을 포함한 현행 우주관련 5개 조약의 지위검토를 법률소위원회에 의제로 포함시킬 것을 제의하여 1998년 제37차 법률소위원회부터 정식으로 승인받아 현재까지 논의되고 있다. 그러나 필자는 '우주법선언'의 내용들이 이미 국제관습법으로 굳어 졌으며, 이를 거의 반영한 우주조약의 상당부분 조항들이 이제는 국제관습법화 되었고, 심지어는 강행규범(jus cogens)이 된 조항들도 있다는 면에서 우주조약의 성과는 국제법상 매우 큰 의미를 지녔다고 평가하고 싶다. 앞으로 우주조약 이외에 우주관련세부조약들로도 해결하지 못하는 분야들은 COPUOS나 UN을 통하여 보완적인 결의와 선언들로 계속 반영되어야 할 것이며 만일 별도의 조약제정이 불가능하다면 적당한 시기에 우주조약을 포함하여 세부조약의 개정을 통하여 또는 추가의정서를 만들어 보완하면 좋을 것이라고 생각한다. 우주조약은 그 개념들의 모호성 때문에 수많은 학자들로부터 비난을 받아왔지만 그럼에도 불구하고 계속 존속해 왔다는 사실을 간과해서는 안 될 것이다. 현재 우주폐기물과 관련하여 "IADC 우주폐기물 경감 가이드라인", COPUOS의 "우주폐기물감축 가이드라인", 세계국제법협회(ILA)의 "우주폐기물로 인한 피해로부터 환경을 보호하기 위한 국제협약 초안" 등이 우주조약을 보완하고 있고, 분쟁해결에 관하여 세계국제법협회(ILA)가 1998년 타이페이(Taipei) 회의에서 채택한 "우주법분쟁해결에 관한 협약안"을 제시한 바 있고, 2011년 중재재판소(PCA)가 "우주활동관련 분쟁의 중재재판에 관한 선택규칙"을 제정하고, 2012년 우주활동관련 분쟁의 중재재판관을 새롭게 임명하였다는 점은 우주법이 계속 발전되어 가고 있다는 모습을 보여주고 있다. 한편 UNIDROIT(국제사법통일기구)에서는 우주자산의 구입 및 조달에 필요한 담보금 거래시 국제적으로 통일된 담보거래 규칙을 위한 "이동장비국제담보권협약에 대한 우주자산의정서"는 우주조약이 해결하지 못하고 있는 분야는 별도의 조약체결을 통하여도 보완되고 있다는 가능성을 보여주고 있는 것이다.