• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2023

In international commercial arbitration, interim measures play a crucial role in enforcing arbitral awards by prohibiting a party from hiding assets or destroying any evidence which are critical during arbitral proceedings before the arbitral tribunal renders a final award. While Chinese commercial arbitration system acknowledges interim measures, it has faced criticism for perceived deviations from the evolving international arbitration trends. Nevertheless, recent developments indicate that China is actively aligning itself with the global trend in promoting international commercial arbitration, leading to notable changes in interim measures. This paper aims to examine the prevailing international trends of interim measures in commercial arbitration and conduct an analysis of the current status of interim measures in Chinese commercial arbitration by analysing some relevant cases and regulations. By doing so, it can provide practical insights to Korean companies on how to effectively utilize interim measures when they settle their disputes by arbitration with Chinese counterparts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.147-169
• /
• 2009

This paper deals with disputes incurred from the CISG provisions in relation with the conformity of goods with a view to finding the general way of approach made by the court and arbitration tribunal in the case laws for the interpretation of CISG based on 6(six) cases thereon. Throughout this study, it has been noted that the German Supreme Court devoted most in creating the general principle of CISG interpretation in relation with national compulsory law of regulation applicable on the conformity of goods. It was New Zealand mussels case in which the German supreme court decided that the exporting country's compulsory law of regulation would be applied in determining the conformity of goods. Furthermore, German supreme court added that CISG does not place an obligation on the exporter to supply goods, which conform to all statutory or other public provisions in force in the import state unless the same provisions exist in the export State as well, or the importer informed the exporter about such provisions existing in the import state, or the exporter had knowledge of the provisions due to special circumstances. It is stipulated in CISG that the goods conform with contract if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used. When questions arise concerning matters governed by the CISG that are not expressly defined in the CISG, the question is to be settled in conformity with general principles on which the convention is based. Only when such a general principle cannot be found may the tribunal turn to other sources such as UNIDROIT Principles, Principles of European Contract Law and Lex Mercatoria, etc. Interpretation of CISG should be autonomous, in the sense that it should not depend on principles and concepts derived from any national legal system. Even where a CISG rule is directly inspired by domestic law, the court should not fall back on its domestic law, but interpret the rule by reference to the CISG with a view to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.117-136
• /
• 2007

Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the international private law and the international commercial arbitration. The purpose of this article is to make research on the party's autonomy principle for the international commercial arbitral awards. For this purpose ist to analyse regal issue the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility of $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$ relating to the party autonomy. In this Article ist dealt with Art. 29 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act in comparison with Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure provides equally. "The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with such 'rules of law' as chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules." The term 'rule of law' used to describe the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$. Unlike Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para.1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Act, Art. 29(1) of the Korean Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with the 'law' chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. However the majority view in Korea takes the position that the term 'law' should be interpreted broadly so as to encompass 'rules of law' at UNCITRAL Model Law and the German Code of Civil Procedure.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.179-220
• /
• 2008

The notion of the 'court' is most unique to ICC arbitration. This paper focuses on what the court is and how it works and what the role and the duties of the Court under the ICC arbitration imply for the KCAB International Arbitration Rules. The Court is an administrative body that administers arbitrations taking place under the ICC Rules of Arbitration. The Court consists of 126 members from 88 countries around the world. Court members participate in decision-making process by way of attending the committee sessions and plenary sessions. At the Court's committee sessions, the Court fixes advance on costs; reviews the prima facie existence of arbitration agreements; fixes the place and language of arbitration, and the number of arbitrator(s); confirms and approves arbitrators; scrutinizes draft awards, determines the costs of arbitration; decides on extensions related to Terms of Reference, draft awards and correction and interpretation of the awards. At the Court's plenary sessions, the Court performs only two responsibilities: the challenge or replacement of arbitrators or the scrutiny of draft awards. The Court is required to scrutinize draft awards involving states or state entities, drafts with huge amounts in dispute or complex technical or legal questions, and as well as draft awards to which a dissenting opinion has been attached. Turning to the KCAB International Arbitration Rules, Article 1(3) provides that the KCAB shall establish an International Arbitration Committee. Further, it is provided that the KCAB shall consult with the said Committee with respect to challenge and replacement/removal of arbitrators pursuant to Article 1(3). The notion and role of the International Arbitration Committee was originally adapted from the Court to ICC arbitration, but its role was quite reduced in the process of enactment of its Rules. Accordingly, I examined the detailed roles of the Court to ICC arbitration in this paper and hereby suggest that the KCAB International Arbitration Rules shall be amended in the following ways: The Secretariat of the KCAB shall: fix advance on costs at the first stage and the costs of arbitration at the final stage of the proceedings; determine the number of arbitrators; review the prima facie of existence of arbitration agreement; confirm arbitrators; decide extensions related to time table, draft awards and correction and interpretation of the awards. I, also, suggest that the arbitral tribunals shall fix the place of arbitration and the language of arbitration and make a final decision on the validity of arbitration agreement. With regard to the International Arbitration Committee, it is desirable for its Rules to empower the Committee to recommend any prospective arbitrator and to review and decide challenge and replacement/removal of arbitrators.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2020

The "arbitration" system resolves disputes through judgments on rights relations or claims between disputed parties by judging by private trial, but it does not have organizational and material bases to execute the contents of these judgments. Therefore, unless the parties succeed in voluntarily surrendering to the results of the arbitration award, the implementation of the award will be accomplished by the enforcement of the assistance of the National Court. However, unlike the court's ruling, the arbitration tribunal does not generate enforcement power from the judgment itself, and it must be filed with the court for execution. In this regard, Germany provides for arbitration proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act Volume 10. In particular, Article 1060 governs the approval and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the procedure for declaring the feasibility of domestic arbitration proceedings and the execution of forced execution are commenced. Regarding the enforceable declaration of a domestic arbitral award, it differs from the simpler process requirements compared to the procedure in a foreign arbitral award, and usually has the same effect as a final judgment between the parties without a separate approval procedure. However, the arbitration award does not constitute an enforceable power that can be implemented, but is enforced through the national court's declaration procedure. However, if there is a ground for cancellation as provided for in Article 1059 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Act, the arbitral award is canceled and the application for enforcement is dismissed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.35-54
• /
• 1998

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of large-scale projects involving construction, public works and the installation of industrial plants. These projects usually require the participation of a number of public and private entities and involve more than one contract. When disputes arising in connection with these projects are to be submitted to commercial arbitration, the parties often wish to have all disputes decided by one arbitral tribunal, in a single comprehensive proceeding. It has become apparent that the resolution of all major disputes which may arise in connection with such a project in a single comprehensive arbitration proceeding presents a number of advantages. The arbitral institution can provide for a multiparty arbitration proceeding only where all of the parties have agreed to it either at the time the disputes arise or at the time the parties enter into their various contractual arrangement. The discussion about multiparty arbitration centers on the question whether courts should have the power to order the consolidation of arbitration proceedings absent the consent of the parties. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly denied certiorari to cases presenting the consolidation-question, the conflict between the Court of Appeals' positions remains. The common method of selection in a bilaterial proceeding is the formula by which each party appoints one arbitrator and the two party-chosen arbitrators then mutually agree on a third, neutral arbitrator. This popular method poses, however, both a policy and practical problems In a 3-party-proceeding. It seems that the better solution is to have courts or arbitral institutions appoint all arbitrators for a multiparty proceeding. American courts have employed a variety of methods to appoint arbitrators for multiparty disputes in cases in which the parties had not provided for or could not agree upon a method themselves.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2010

ADR is alternative dispute resolution that includes mediation, adjudication, arbitration, conciliation and ombudsman schemes. ADR may be an alternative to going to court or to a tribunal. The main types of ADR are conciliation, arbitration or mediation and ADR is divided into national leading ADR and private lading ADR and national leading ADR includes court-annexed ADR and administrative ADR. Court-annexed ADR has become a well established feature of the judicial systems on a global basis. The bulk of court-annexed ADR in Glove is by way of mediation. Thus each nation takes part in ADR by court involvement and Enactment of ADR-related Laws. And the involvement of nations have both the regulative character and promotive character in ADR. In addition to the national leading ADR, the private leading ADR also must be activated as United Kingdom. Thus this paper deals with national leading ADR and private leading ADR and the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the activation of ADR by studying the promotion and limited the involvement of nation in ADR and private leading ADR in United Kingdom.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2005

The purposes of this paper are to investigate how deeply the courts in Korea and the U.S. are involved in the enforcement process of the arbitral award. The extent of judicial review of arbitral award and the procedures to execute the arbitral award were explored and compared in each of the countries. In Korea the winning party should file a suit for enforcement judgement to execute the arbitral award, while the winning party in the U.S. should file an application for motion. Such difference in the execution process between Korea and the U.S. may be led to a higher burden on the Korean winning party in the execution process due to the complexity and instability during the new litigation for enforcement judgement. In addition, the Korean Arbitration Act does not grant any authority for the court to intervene with the substantive matters in the arbitral award, while in the U.S. the Common Law allows the court to vacate the arbitral ward when the arbitral award is entered with the manifest disregard of the law by the arbitral tribunal. It would be more practical for the court to supplementarily intervene with the arbitral award which obviously hurts the legal interest of the arbitral parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.