• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2012

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act in Japan was proclaimed on December 1, 2004, and five years have passed since the act took effect on April 1, 2007. The ADR Act enables qualified dispute resolution businesses to be certified as ADR business holders through the government's accreditation system, contributing greatly to the advancement of a private ADR. As of June 2012, the number of ADR institutes certified by the government had increased to 112. Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of Japan's ADR Act provides as follows: "The government should review the progress of the Act five years after enforcement, and take measures, if recognized as necessary, based on the results." Any problems revealed in the process of implementing the act are expected to be revised after five years of enforcement. To this end, the academic circle established an association called the Arbitration ADR Act Society in 2004, considering issues of the ADR Act and measures to improve the legislation, making policy suggestions, and working to improve management of the act, through seminars, forums, and a journal. The Japanese ADR Association, composed of ADR institutions as members, put forward a proposal entitled "Toward the Revision of the ADR Act" to the Ministry of Justice on April 2, 2012. This paper intends to identify the current state of the accreditation system, one of the most important systems under the ADR Act in Japan, in consideration of ADR Act revision. In particular, the examination includes measures to improve the accreditation system as well as data analysis of the application of accreditation, the current state of accredited institutions, and the ADR performance of accredited ADR businesses. In Korea, an ADR act has not been legislated yet, although the issue is being actively considered. This paper will be a meaningful reference for the Korean government in developing an accreditation system for inclusion in its ADR act in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2012

China instituted arbitration law on September 1, 1995, after having legislated the law under the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, Chinese arbitration law has some problems related to the effectiveness of its arbitration agreement, unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law. Thus, parties in dispute who want to settle a dispute based on Chinese arbitration law as governing law have more to take into consideration because there could be serious problems related to the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, this paper attempted to analyze the classification of jurisdiction related to the authorization of effectiveness in arbitration agreement of arbitral organization and Chinese, verify the problems, and suggest the solutions. Moreover, the author tried to verify the problems in applying the law related to the authorization of effectiveness in Chinese arbitration agreements and suggest some improvements. This paper also suggests improvements and problems related to the selection of arbitral organizations among several conditions for effective arbitration agreement in Chinese arbitration law. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures related to arbitrations agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.151-171
• /
• 2010

This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices In the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement, providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.89-105
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the issue of party autonomy in arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreement has been interpreted somewhat differently from general contracts because its legal characteristics are not purely contractual by nature. For example, some legal scholars insist that an arbitration contract is more about an agreement on a process of dispute resolution than a creation of rights and obligations to avoid litigation. Party autonomy was discussed in diverse legal perspectives including contract of adhesion, VKI principle, and separability of arbitration clause. These three legal perspectives are discussed to set the legal relationship between party autonomy and protection of consumers in consumer arbitration. In addition, it was discussed how legal defects in the formation of an arbitration contract can influence the party autonomy. The legal defects that were discussed to analyze the relationship between arbitration agreement and party autonomy included misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, duress, and undue influence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.35-60
• /
• 2017

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings: Arbitration is generally faster and more inexpensive (cheaper) than litigation in court. The Republic of Korea enacted the "Arbitration Industry Promotion Act" to develop arbitration. This law provides for the establishment and operation of arbitration institutions, training of arbitration experts, and support of arbitration studies and international exchanges. Effective operation of an arbitration institution has an important influence on the development of arbitration. Neutral and good arbitration experts improve the authority of arbitration. The academic study of arbitration theoretically develops the arbitration procedure. In addition, this paper referred to some additional factors that South Korea should have in order to become an attractive place of arbitration. Neutrality and fairness of the court of arbitration are highly important factors in arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration institution should be operated independently and clearly from the government to ensure neutrality and fairness. The parties of arbitration should also be free and able to defend their interests sufficiently in the arbitration proceedings. Lastly, coordination between this law and other laws is necessary.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.51-74
• /
• 2024

Korea continues to invest in the IT industry and is currently regarded as one of the five major powerhouses in the field of intellectual property. However, it is evaluated that this status is only limited, and the level of intellectual property protection and dispute resolution does not reach a level commensurate with the status of one of the five major intellectual property powers. To address these problems, the Korean government has enacted the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act in 2017, which aims to strengthen national competitiveness by fostering the arbitration system as an industry and provide systematic support so that the arbitration industry can become a future growth engine. In addition, in accordance with Article 3 of the 「Arbitration Industry Promotion Act」, the Minister of Justice must establish "the Basic Plan for Arbitration Industry Promotion" every 5 years. Great efforts must be put into establishing an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) system at the KCAB for five years from 2024 to 2028, the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of the Arbitration Industry period. Under these circumstances, this study presents implications and improvement measures for the development of the intellectual property-related arbitration system to protect Korea's intellectual property rights and contribute to more active intellectual property creation. In particular, this study proposes a plan to build an one-stop digital platform for KCAB to implement an efficient ODR system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.199-225
• /
• 2010

This study investigates the characteristics of local arbitration committees in China based on arbitration institution evaluation model. Most of the literature on Chinese arbitration committees only focuses on CIETAC. However, the promulgation of 1994 Chinese arbitration act allows local arbitration committees to deal the arbitration cases related with foreign element. Before 1994, only CIETAC and CMAC handle the arbitration cases related with foreign element. For the evaluation of the local arbitration committees, this study establishes the arbitration institution evaluation model. This model has seven evaluation criteria: accessability, independence, neutrality, rapidity, economy, professionality, and extent of enforcement. Our findings are as follows. First, Chinese local arbitration committees have the strengths in the fields of accessability, economy and rapidity. However, they are deficient in the area of neutrality, professionality, and independence. Second, the spatial distribution of Chinese local arbitration committees is not equal in China. The number of local arbitration committees is big in the high growth region such as Shandong province. On the other hand, the number of local arbitration committees is small in the economically stagnant area. Third, the size and activity of local arbitration committees are various. Some of them are very active in dispute resolution through arbitration in China. For example, Beijing Arbitration Committee(BAC), Wuhan, Quangzou Arbitration Committee play the important role in dispute resolution through arbitration. However, the large part of local arbitration committees is financially weak and depend on the local government's financial support.