• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2007

The International Chamber of Commerce has been the world's leading organization in the field of international commercial dispute resolution. Established in 1923 as the arbitration body of ICC, the International Court of Arbitration has pioneered international commercial arbitration as it is known today. The ICC International Court of Arbitration is the world's foremost institution in the resolution of international business disputes. While most arbitration institutions are regional or national in scope, the ICC Court is truly international. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in ICC Rules of Arbitration as follows; First, before the actual merits of the case can be addressed, the Arbitral Tribunal must first draw up the Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference should include the particulars listed in the ICC Rules. Apart from the full names and description of the parties and arbitrators, the place of arbitration and a summary of the parties' respective claims, they contain particulars concerning the applicable procedural rules and any other provisions required to make the Award enforceable at law Second, the Scrutiny is a fundamental feature of ICC arbitration and is one that distinguishes it from the other major international arbitration rules. The scrutiny system has two aspects ; the first is to identify or modify the defects of form, while the second is to draw the arbitrators' attention to points of substance. Third, as soon as practicable, the Court fixes an advance on costs intended to cover the estimated fees and expenses of the arbitrators, as well as the administrative expenses of ICC. Specially, the advance on costs fixed by the Court shall be payable in equal shares by the Claimant and Respondent. Finally, the parties are also free to select the arbitrator or arbitrators of their choice. The Court or the Secretary General confirms arbitrators nominated by the parties. Taking a step forward, to upgrade the quality of the award of KCAB, it is desirable to consider how to incorporate the main contents of the ICC Arbitration into Korea Commercial Arbitration Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.131-160
• /
• 2017

When any investment dispute arises, the investor has to exhaust the local remedies available in the host state, and according to the agreement between the parties, the investor is filed to the ICSID arbitral tribunal to seek arbitral awards. At this time, if the arbitral tribunal decides that the investment agreement has been violated, it normally demands the host state to provide financial compensations to the investor for economic loss. According to the rules of the investment agreement, the host state is supposed to fulfill the arbitral awards voluntarily. If it is unwilling to provide financial compensations according to the arbitral awards, however, the investor may ask the domestic court of the host state for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In addition, if the host state is unwilling to fulfill arbitral awards on account of state immunity, the investor may ask his own country (state of nationality) for diplomatic protection and urge it to demand the fulfillment of arbitral awards. Effectiveness for pecuniary damages, a means to solve problems arising in the enforcement of investment arbitral awards, is found to be rather ineffective. For such cases, this study suggests an alternative to demand either a restitution of property or a corrections of violated measures subject to arbitral awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-167
• /
• 2010

The enforcement of commercial arbitration awards in the People's Republic of China is one the controversial obstacles faced by foreign investors in China. The foreign investor will fail to enforce the arbitration award, if the Chinese court refuses the enforcement in China, even if the arbitration tribunal rules the award in favor of foreign investor who is in dispute with Chinese partners. In Korea, we have not many researches in the enforcement of foreign related awards and awards ruled by other jurisdiction. In recent times, Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) and Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) reports the details of the enforcement statistics of CIETAC during 1990s. Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the obstacles of the enforcement of foreign related awards in China. This paper extends their researches in the field of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. First, this paper extends Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005)'s study by introducing the Chinese enforcement situation during the period of 2000-2007. Second, this paper extends Professor Sunjung Kim(2008) emphasizes the local protectionism and the weakness of judiciary as key factors of obstacles to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. This paper, additionally, highlights the role of the Guanxi and the antagonism of court toward arbitration institution to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. Third, this study provides the recent developments of Supreme People's Court(SPC)'s rules to narrow down the gap between the practices of international arbitration and those of People's Republic of China. The Implications of this study are as follows. First, it is desirable for foreign investors to appoint the CIETAC or BAC as the arbitration commission in China. Second, the local competent attorney is the best choice to solve the respondent's insolvency in China. Third, foreign investors is required to monitor the provisions on the electronic instruments such as EDI and Email in Chinese law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.21-39
• /
• 2010

The role of the arbitrator is so significant in the international arbitration that its success or failure may depend on the credibility of the arbitrator. It has long been understood that the ideal arbitrators are should be independent, unbiased, and have the requisite legal and/or technical expertise and experience for the case at hand. Arbitrators may be selected either by agreement of the parties, by appointment by arbitral institution or by a national court. This article outlines the main method of selecting the members of the tribunal plus some of the benefits and burdens of each method. One of the most common methods of appointing arbitrators is by agreement of the parties. This approach is very attractive because it allows parties to submit a their dispute to judges of their own choice, that they also agree on. Most arbitral institutions have a panel of arbitrators and their arbitral rules. So, if disputants agree on a specific arbitral institution, they can settle their disputes by arbitration easily and quickly. If disputants are unable to agree on arbitrator(s) or a specific arbitral institution, method of selecting arbitrator(s) by national court must be employed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.239-257
• /
• 2011

This article examines the requirements of Article 37 of the ICDR International Arbitration Rules and issues that could arise if a party petitions a U.S. Federal Court to enforce an emergency arbitrator's Article 37 decision to grant pre-arbitration provisional relief. On May 1, 2006, ICDR introduced a new procedure for the granting of emergency arbitral relief under its ICDR Rules. The procedure enables a party to apply for emergency interim relief before the appointment of an arbitrator or tribunal to adjudicate the merits of the dispute. Instead, the application for emergency relief is considered by an emergency arbitrator appointed by the ICDR. In short, the ICDR has quickly appointed emergency arbitrator and resolved a challenge to an appointment within 36 hours. In addition, the emergency decisions have been issued within just a couple of weeks. In particular, we looked at what would happen after Article 37 emergency relief is granted. Based on my examination of U.S. cases on the enforceability of interim awards and orders, We conclude that U.S. courts would enforce Article 37 interim measures, whether they are characterized by the emergency arbitrator as an interim order or award. Where the situation warrants, arbitration executives should embrace and use emergency relief procedure of ICDR Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.131-155
• /
• 2011

PICC executes its role as a useful lex mercatoria in the continuously increasing international trade to be adopted as the standard criterion of prevention or dispute resolution. When considering the fact that GISG has not presented results beyond expectation in the past due to hard laws and legal deficiency, PICC, which possesses interpretation and supplementation function, is considered undoubtedly useful particularly in international commercial arbitration. As observed in the previously mentioned analysis on cases accumulated in UNILEX, PICC application and Arbitral tribunal in international contract between parties possess considerably large claim possibility and the number of actual application cases is continuously increasing. The fact that PICC has been composed as maximum common measures of continental and common law systems by traditional comparative legal scholars familiar with international trade can function as the fundamental principle in future global trade activity and can also act as the model law for uniting contract laws of nations. In this aspect, PICC can be evaluated to have considerably achieved enactment purpose of previous intention. However, additional topics that had not been accepted in the revised edition of PICC remain as assignments requiring solution, such as analysis and acceptance problem of comparative law, PR of PICC unfamiliar even to the relative parties of international trade and application in international contract, and absorption problem as model law in various domestic laws.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.79-103
• /
• 2014

In light of increasing international trade in recent years, international arbitration has been more widely used by international parties to resolve their conflicts. Thus, the need for reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has amplified. To facilitate the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention lists grounds for the refusal of recognition and enforcement in Article V. This paper examines prominent U.S. case law on Article V(1)(b), which is put in place to ensure that arbitration proceedings are conducted properly in accordance with due process requirements: proper notice to parties and an opportunity to a fundamentally fair hearing. This examination of case law conveys that U.S. courts refuse to enforce foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Article V(1)(b) only when due process rights of the party against whom the award is to be enforced are clearly violated by the arbitral tribunal. This paper also reveals that U.S. courts mainly defer to arbitral tribunals' discretion, especially as to evidentiary matters. Therefore, it is predicted that U.S. courts will likely continue to narrowly construe the grounds in Article V to facilitate reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the U.S.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2018

As the disputes in the investment and civil/commercial sectors of China and Taiwan have increased due to active cross-strait economic exchanges, the Chinese government is addressing cross-strait disputes through various dispute resolution methods. In recent years, the Arbitration Center Across the Straits (ACAS) has been established to resolve disputes between cross-strait parties, while ACAS Arbitration Rules have been enacted and enforced. ACAS Arbitration Rules are prepared by referring to the Arbitration Act of China and Taiwan, the relevant provisions and practices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules and the cross-strait practical affairs of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, and the cross-strait practical affairs giving consideration to the specificity of the cross-strait relationship and the characteristics of economic and trade disputes. Therefore, this paper has compared the features and main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules with those of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. This refers to arbitration proceedings such as form and effect of arbitration agreement, decision of place of arbitration, and organization of arbitral tribunal; the provision of consolidation of multiple contracts and arbitration, and the provision of joinder of arbitration parties, which are implementing the "principle of party autonomy" with streamlining arbitration proceedings and reducing costs; "common, simple, and small sum arbitration proceedings which require shorter arbitration proceedings depending on the size of the arbitration object; and regulations on the "interconnection of mediation and conciliation" which is characteristic of China's arbitration system. Based on the above-mentioned main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules in China, there are some implications to be considered in the establishment of the Arbitration Rules of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission which will be applied to solve commercial and investment disputes arising from the Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation process, suggesting implications such as the need for the rapid composition and operation of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission, requirements for selecting arbitrators, expansion of the object of arbitration, specification of concreteness in deciding the place of arbitration, need to create a variety of arbitration proceedings, and application plan of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) or Third Power Arbitration Agency.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.