• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.63-93
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this paper is to examine the consideration factors, from both parties' perspective, to select the most appropriate arbitral institution when they inset an arbitration clause in their contract. Accordingly, the author analyzed the advantages of institutional arbitration compared to non-institutional arbitration. The typical advantages of institutional arbitration would include: $\bullet$ Benefits of using an established set of rules $\bullet$ Services provided by the institution $\bullet$ Low risks of obstruction $\bullet$ Enhancement of the possibilities of enforcement $\bullet$ Forecast of the estimated cost $\bullet$ Specially useful for existing disputes Next, this author examined the consideration factors when selecting the institution in respect of the following factors: $\bullet$ Institution's arbitration rules $\bullet$ Institution's rule regarding the appointment of arbitrators $\bullet$ Ability of administrators of each institution $\bullet$ Reputation of the arbitral institution and the likability of enforceability of its award $\bullet$ Cost $\bullet$ Choice of the arbitral institution in relation to the choice of place of arbitration Finally, this author reviewed Model Arbitration Clause of major international or local Institutions, including ICC, AAA, LCIA, KCAB, CIETAC, ICSID and WIPO. Further examination was given to the selection of the numbers of the arbitral tribunal, the seat of arbitration and the language of arbitration, according to the designated articles in each institution's arbitration rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.185-207
• /
• 2008

한국 기업과 프랑스 기업 간에 한국기업이 프랑스기업으로부터 의약품의 임상자료 등에 관한 비밀정보 (Confidential information)를 받아서 한국식품의약품안전청에 의약품 제조허 가를 받기 위해 활용하는 과정에서 체결한 비밀유지 계약 (Secrecy Agreement)의 위반행위 여부의 분쟁이 발생하였다. 이 분쟁은 비밀유지계약 내의 중재조항에 의거하여 프랑스기업에 의해 프랑스 파리 소재 국제중재 판정부 (ICC Court Arbitral Tribunal) 에 회부되었고 한국기업이 응소하여 중재판정부에서 분쟁 사실들에 관한 양 당사자 회사들의 전문가들의 증언, 준비 서면들을 검토하여 비밀유지계약 각각의 조문의 해석을 통해 중재판정이 내려졌다. 이 중재판정은 ‘외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 뉴욕협약’에 의거하여 중재판정 집행지국인 우리나라의 법원에서 집행판결을 거치게 되었다. 이때 한국법원에서는 뉴욕협약상의 집행거부 사유들에 관한 판단을 한 후 프랑스기업의 일부 승소의 집행판결을 내렸다. 본 사례연구의 시사점을 보면, 중재조항에 의거한 ICC 중재판정부의 심사절차는 각 나라 고유의 판례나 규정보다는, 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 근거하여 중재판정이 내려졌다는 것이다. 우리나라 법원 역시 중재인의 건전한 상식에 근거를 둔 중재판정의 세부적 내용에 대하여 중재권한, 국제적 공공질서 상의 심각한 문제점이 존재하지 않은 점을 고려하여 일부분을 제외하고는 외국중재판정을 그대로 집행함을 인용하는 판결을 내렸다는 점이다. 따라서, 한국기업들이 국제분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 중재판정이 내려진 후 집행단계에서 중재판정 내용을 바꾸려는 노력을 하기보다는, 중재 절차 진행단계에서 한국 기업에게 객관적으로 입증할 수 있는 유리한 증거들을 중점적으로 적극 활용하여 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 바탕을 둔 중재판정을 유리한 방향으로 내리도록 유도하는 것이 더욱 바람직한 것이다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.28
• /
• pp.91-117
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine practical and legal considerations in the choice of the "Seat of Arbitration". As the selection of the "Seat of Arbitration" in an international commercial contract is vital both judicially and practically, so to speak, in terms of enforceability of award, judical interference in arbitration proceedings, relative convenience and expense, and the selection of arbitrators, the selection should be carefully considered and examined. In case of institutional arbitration, when the arbitration clause does not nominate the seat, the administrator or the secretariat of the institution or the arbitrator tribunal would usually determine the seat. On the contrary in case of ad hoc arbitration, Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the "Seat of Arbitration" would be determined according to the rules which are selected by parties or their arbitrators. To avoid confusing situation about the selection of the seat, this writer would like to recommend ICC or LCIA with each Standard Arbitration Clause. If the parties want any national arbitration institution because of the expenses incurred in international institution, AAA or CEPANI is recommendable in terms of the reputation, operating system and recognized performance. Specially ICC Court of Arbitration usually examines the award before it is issued, so the enforceablity would go up. Thus when the parties lay down the arbitration clause in their contract they should confirm whether the "Seat of Arbitration" is fixed or not. If not, at least they should examine the arbitration rules which would be applied, and know in advance how the seat be determined.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.107-127
• /
• 2021

Vietnam is an important country with many trade transactions with the Republic of Korea. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes that can arise with the increase in trade transactions. It is essential to study the legal system and precedents of Vietnam on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Such is the case because the law in Vietnam and the court's position on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards issued by the courts depend on the possibility of realizing the parties' rights concerning their disputes. Therefore, it is of great value both theoretically and practically to analyze the exact differences between approval and the denial of approval. Vietnam has enacted the Commercial Arbitration Act, which replaces the previous Commercial Arbitration Decree and creates an arbitration-friendly environment that meets international arbitration standards. Regarding the approval and execution of foreign arbitration awards, the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Civil Procedure Act, the Civil Execution Act, and the Vietnam Foreign Arbitration Awards Approval and Enforcement Ordinance are regulated. Following these laws and regulations, the reasons for the approval, enforcement, and rejection of the arbitral award are specified. In accordance with these laws and inappropriate arbitration agreements, an arbitral award beyond the scope of its right of disposition, an arbitral tribunal, or the concerned parties could not be involved in a proceeding or an arbitral award if the involved party does not have an opportunity to exercise its rights lawfully. If the state agency in the forum does not recognize the arbitral award, the dispute is not subject to arbitration under Vietnamese law, or the arbitral award does not conform to the basic principles of Vietnamese law, the parties are not bound, and the foreign arbitration award is rejected for approval and execution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2022

The modern arbitration practice recognises the need for a faster and simplified procedural framework for international disputes with fairly low amounts at stake. This has driven several institutions to expand their offer of procedural guidelines with a simplified set of rules that would fit this purpose. Expedited arbitration is increasingly used by parties and is growing in popularity. The basic idea behind establishing expedited arbitration rules is to create the possibility for the parties to a dispute to agree on a simplified and streamlined procedure and to have an arbitration award issued within a short period. The associated cost savings for the parties is another benefit. The importance of developing rules for expedited dispute resolution has recently also been considered by the UNCITRAL Working Group II, in light of the "increasing demand to resolve simple, low-value cases by arbitration" and "the lack of international mechanisms cope with such disputes." As a result, the UNCITRAL 2021 Expedited Arbitration Rules (UNCITRAL EAR) took effect on September 19, 2021. The EAR was adopted by the Commission on 21 July 2021 and, next to UNCITRAL's well-known instruments like the Arbitration Rules (UAR) and the Model Law, represent another chapter in the Commission's impactful work in the field of international arbitration. Overall, the UNCITRAL EAR has great potential to meet the need for more flexible and efficient arbitration proceedings, primarily because they provide the tribunal with strong managerial powers while still leaving room for consultation with the parties. However, parties must remember that not all disputes may be suitable for expedited arbitration, and disputes that are complex or have the possibility of being joint or consolidated may not benefit from simplified procedures and tight deadlines. This article will outline the core features and characteristics of the UNCITRAL EAR.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.141-141
• /
• 2017

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.281-300
• /
• 2004

This paper is about a case on the arbitration of disputes between the parties of charter party. 'B' vessel owner on the original charter party first made a charter party with 'L' cargo owner on the original charter party. Then, 'B' entered into another charter party with 'D' vessel owner, who will actually take charge of carriage of the cargoes which is described on the original charter party. Therefore, 'B' is a carrier of cargoes of 'L' and 'D' is a carrier of cargoes of 'B', according to the contracts. The cargoes of 'B' is cargoes of 'L', by nature. In these circumstances, damages to the cargoes occurred in the transit by the vessel of 'D'. Who should take the responsibility for the damage of cargoes? Who must be liable for those, 'B' or 'D'？. According to the original charter party, 'L' signed 'as Charterers' and 'B' was the counterpart of 'L'. But 'B' signed as 'for and on behalf of 'B',' without 'as Owners'. Tribunal of arbitration award that 'B' should take the responsibility for the damage to the cargoes, because 'B' is the vessel owner. Although 'B' is a contract carrier, 'B' must bear the liability of transport of the cargoes. The counterpart of charterer, 'L' is 'B' who is presumed to be the vessel owner by the original charter party. 'D', actual carrier is not the privy of 'L', cargo owner. This case teach us that signature on the contract is the matter of great importance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.67-94
• /
• 2020

This paper examines the current enforcement regime of Korea and provides an overview of the same with focus on the changes before and after the 2016 revision of the Korean Arbitration Act. It briefly studies the pro-arbitration bias of the New York Convention, as well as the Korean judiciary's stance on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Some of the substantial issues discussed in the paper include the major procedural changes brought about by the 2016 amendment with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards. The paper also discusses the rare instances where the Korean judiciary refused to recognize or enforce an arbitral award, and the reasoning behind the refusal. The paper discusses and analyzes four court judgments that reflect the Korean judiciary's position on the enforcement of foreign and domestic arbitral awards in Korea. It focuses on the NDS v. KT Skylife case, where the court of first instance refused the enforcement on grounds that the relief granted by the arbitral tribunal was not specific enough for enforcement. Ultimately, the appellate court, although agreeing on the specificity requirement, reversed the ruling and granted an enforcement judgment on grounds that the application for enforcement had the legal interest to request an enforcement judgment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.115-137
• /
• 1999

The UNCITRAL, during its thirty-two session in 1999 discussed certain issues and problems identified in interactional commercial arbitration practice. The issues discussed include certain aspects if conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; arbitability ; soverign immunity ; consolidation of more than one case into one arbitral proceedings ; confidentiality of information in arbitral proceedings ; rasing claims in arbitral proceedings for the purpose of set-off ; decisions by "turncated" arbitral tribunals liability of arbitrators ; power by the arbitral tribunal to award interest ; costs of arbitral proceedings ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the state of origin. Among those issues discussed, most of States agreed that the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the State of origin should have priority over other issues. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues, possibly indicating whether further work should be towards a legislative text (such as a model legislative provision or a treaty) or a non-legislative text (such as a model contractual rule).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.121-147
• /
• 2016

Factual issues in most patent litigation are related to very complicated techniques. Thus, the courts has emphasised that the technology in dispute has to be read and understood through the eyes of a person to whom it is directed. Therefore, among the various processes in federal litigation, most litigation in the field of patent infringement relies on at least some expert evidence. This paper focuses on issues regarding patent dispute evidence, and explore whether there are unresolved issues in evidential rules and procedures of patent proceedings. Further, this paper seeks to demonstrate that both the parties and the courts in patent disputes generally benefit from the current evidence system. However, in a number of Australian cases, the scope of expert evidence in patent cases has been strictly limited. Australian Government identified uncertain issues associated with the present patent enforcement system, due to factors such as a low level of knowledge about what patent rights entail, the high degree of uncertainty of outcome in legal proceedings, etc. Arbitration shall be reviewed and suggested as an alternative to tackling the ongoing problems in the trial system.