• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.63-82
• /
• 2016

In order to cope with the changes of International Commercial Arbitration, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) regulated an Emergency Arbitrator for the first time, implementing the arbitration rules in China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone on May 1, 2014. Moreover, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) also regulated the Emergency Arbitrator in the revised arbitration rules on January 1, 2015. However, it caused considerable contradiction that SHIAC and CIETAC admitted an interim measure decision by the Emergency Arbitrator under the circumstance that the Chinese court can impose a preservative measure in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Arbiration Act. This study attempted to compare the main contents of an Emergency Arbitrator regulated in the arbitration rules of SHIAC and CIETAC with arbitration rules of representative arbitral institutions which operate an Emergency Arbitrator. In addition, this study verified the application features and problems through comparing the rule of SHIAC and CIETAC with the rule related to the preservative measure in Chinese law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2020

Smart contracts are implemented by blockchain technology, which stores the terms of the contracts of both parties on the blockchain. In the event of an international dispute over smart contracts and blockchains, no special solution has been proposed, such as the enactment of the International Unification Act. The blockchain platform which operates smart contracts is decentralized and operates through distributed nodes around the world without central servers, making it difficult to establish jurisdiction and governing laws. As an alternative to traditional dispute-solving methods, a new mediation model-smart arbitration-is being attempted. The arbitration process is likely to be a preferred means of resolving disputes over smart contracts in practice. There are many problems, such as the fairness of the arbitration center on the selection and judgment of arbitrators, the question of securing reliability, the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and how much the court can be involved in the case. Preparations at the national level, such as fostering blockchains and smart contract experts, and overhauling the legal system, are needed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.315-341
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 1999년에 전면 개정된 한국의 중재법과 1925년에 제정된 미국의 연방중재볍 및 2000년에 제시된 개정통일중재법의 내용 중 중재인의 권한과 의무들에 관한 규정들을 비교 분석한 것이다. 우선, 미국 중재법의 기본법이라 할 수 있는 연방중재법은 1925년에 제정된 이래 중재 이슈에 관한 발전들을 담아내지 못한 채 진부한 과거의 법률을 그대로 유지하고 있다. 따라서, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 중재판정과 같은 기본적인 권한 규정 외에 중재인의 임시적 처분이나 민사책임의 면제, 고지 의무등 새롭게 진전된 중재 환경의 변화나 논의들이 다루어지지 않고 있다. 그러나, 미국의 통일주법위원전미협의회가 주체가 되어 제시한 2000년의 개정통일중재법은 중재이론이나 케이스의 발전들을 반영하였을 뿐만 아니라, 중재인의 권한과 의무에 대해서도 훨씬 구체적인 규정들을 담아내고 있다. 개정통일중재법은 중재언의 권한을 개정 이전보다 훨씬 강화하는 대신, 보다 엄격한 윤리적 의무를 부과함으로써 균형을 유지하려 하고 있다. 특히, 중재인의 올바른 중재판정을 이끌어 내기 위해 증거 확보에 있어 보다 강한 절차적 권한을 부여하고 있는 것이 특정이다. 아울러, 중재인으로 하여금 임시적 처분을 내릴 수 있는 권한을 부여하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 징벌적 배상을 결정할 수 있게까지 규정하고 있다. 그러나, 중재인의 절차적 권한의 강화는 동법이 의도한 바와는 달리 중재를 재판에 유사한 구조로 만듦과 동시에, 중재의 신속성과 최종성을 해치는 결과를 초래하는 것이 아닌가 하는 우려와 지적을 낳기도 한다. 한편, 한국의 중재법은 중재인의 임시적 처분권한과 고지의무를 규정하고 있지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법과 달리 민사적 책임면제 규정을 두고 있지는 않다. 특히, 한국 중재법에서 중재인은 증거를 수집하기 위하여 당사자의 임의적 협조에 의존하지만, 미국의 개정통일중재법에서는 증거개시제도까지 채택하고, 제 3 자도 소환할 수 있는 등 중재인의 절차적 권한이 훨씬 강하므로 한국 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한은 미국의 개정통일중재법에서의 그것보다는 훨씬 제한적이다. 한국의 중재를 더욱 실효성 있게 하기 위해서는 중재법에서 중재인의 절차적 권한에 관한 규정을 보완해 주어야 할 것이다. 또 성공적인 중재를 위해서는 중재인의 전문성과 함께 윤리의식이 중요하므로 상사중 재원은 별도의 중재인 윤리규정을 제정해야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

Arbitration is the system of resolving disputes not by the adjudication of a national court but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators. To settle disputes by arbitration, it should be concluded that the arbitration agreement which is implied that the parties agree to submit to the arbitral award about all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationships. 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. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution. Because arbitration is a private proceeding with public consequences that some types of dispute are reserved for national courts, whose proceedings are generally in the public domain. It is this sense that they may not be the object of arbitration. After all, it could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2011

본 연구에서는 항해용선계약상 Asbatankvoy 서식을 중심으로 집단대표중재의 효과에 관한 분석을 하는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위한 자료로서 미국에서 쟁점이 된 Stolt-Nielsen 사건을 분석하고 있다. 이 사건에서 집단대표중재원칙은 중재조항이 집단대표중재를 허용할지의 여부를 결정하는 것은 중재인에게 요구하고 있다는 것이다. 당사자는 중재패널을 선임하고 중재지를 뉴욕시로 지정하였다. 또한 중재조항은 집단대표중재문제에 대하여 침묵한다는 것을 규정하고 있었다. 중재패널은 중재조항은 집단대표중재를 허용한 것이라고 판정하였지만, 지방법원은 중재판정을 무효라고 판정하였다. 그러나 제2순회구항소법원은 청구자는 집단대표중재에 대한 관례 관습과 관련된 해사원칙을 적용할 권한이 없다는 것을 인용하고 있기 때문에 중재인의 판정은 해사법의 명백한 무시를 한 것이 아니라고 판결하였다. 즉 중재인은 집단대표중재에 대한 원칙을 확립하지 않고 있는 뉴욕법을 명백하게 무시한 것이 아니라는 것이다. 그러나 미국 연방최고법원은 당사자들이 중재합의를 하였으나, 개별분쟁이 아닌 집단을 당사자로 하는 집단분쟁을 중재로 해결할지에 관하여 침묵하고 있는 경우에 집단대표중재를 강제할 수 있는지에 관하여 중재를 강제할 수 없다는 판결을 선고하였다. 최고법원에 따르면 연방중재법 상 당사자들이 분쟁을 중재로 해결하는 것을 허용하기로 합의하지 않았다면 중재를 강제할 수 없는 것이 원칙이라고 판시하고 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.473-493
• /
• 2016

If a certain country or an arbitration institution hopes to keep ahead of the fierce competition in the international arbitration market, it needs to develop hardware factors, such as i) Facility and Infra, ii) Geographical Location, iii) Professional Staff, iv) Global Network, v) Capital, and vi) Arbitrators & Practitioners etc., along with software factors including i) Arbitration Rules of Law, ii) Court's Support, iii) International Convention, iv) Political Risk, and v) Education Environment, which are the most critical requirements in the development strategy for international arbitration. Having perceived the above situation, the Korean government has been working on amending the Korean Arbitration Act to reflect global advanced practice of international arbitration, and seeking to enact laws that will promote our arbitration industry and create a more arbitration-friendly environment. The KCAB is also currently revising both the domestic and international arbitration rules in accordance with these national efforts. Under these circumstances, this paper examines how major leading international arbitration institutions manage their secretariats and suggests how the KCAB can compose and manage its Secretariat to gain a competitive advantage over rival institutions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.495-522
• /
• 2016

The Mongolia is one of the highly impressive potential developing countries in Asia according to open the economic market. Since early 1990 as the falling apart from Russian union, Mongolia has tried to developing economic status with plentiful stocked natural resources in their country. The Mongolia has been accepting the modernizing their legal systems including national amended law of arbitration 2003 which was based in the 'UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985' to harmonize with the international arbitration trends. However, UNCITRAL council announced the adapting members countries excluding Mongolia caused by the inappropriate international standard conditions. As the foreign business partners with Mongolian, it is not easy to agree a site in Mongolia for the place of arbitration on their disputes settlement cause by the weak confidence and precarious interruption under the arbitration processing and enforcement of award on the uncertain law of arbitration on their law of arbitration. Recently, the Mongolian government intends to revise their arbitration law to comply to newly UNCITRAL Model Law in 2006 revision for improving the putting confidence and promoting the choosing arbitration on the place of commercial disputes in Mongolia. It is the point to considering in this article to compare to the problems and alternative ways to the legal and practical arbitration services for reliant and confirming arbitration system in Mongolia for the business parties of Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.245-283
• /
• 2003

Since enactment of the Product Liability Act(PLA) on July 2002, Enterprises in Korea should be insured the Product Liability under the Act. Therefore they had to make a special team and organize it to match with the Act. However, some enterprises didn't follow and prepare the team for the dispute resolution. For example, in America, many enterprises had been attacked the PLA and in Japan, as well. but Korea is rare for the PLA. Thus, this is to research the PLA for protecting the disputes. Upon this study, 1 would like to suggest some issues and a revision of the PLA. Those are the purpose of my research. In this study, it consists of 5 chapters for achieving the purpose of the research. Introduction of this study is mentioned in Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 is for outline of the PLA in Korea. At Chapter 3, the cases are analyzed in the disputes of importers to address important things we have to check. After the analysis, resolution methods in general on import practices are suggested at Chapter 4. Also, this study is summarized at Chapter 5 including further research. In this research, 1 find out complex of Product Liability insurance and issues related with PLA. For protecting the issues and disputes; importers should prepare a agreement of arbitration during the preparation of contracts. Nothing can be better than prevention on any disputes, but they can be happened sometimes without any intentions or by mistake. Solving these issues, the resolution methods of this research are the most valuable. The mediation and the negotiation do not force any legal matters. So, the dispute through them does not have a positive resolution, and the effectiveness of them is very low. Due to the resolution of issues, arbitration is a desirable resolution. In Korea, most people do not know about the arbitration due to the lack of understanding of arbitration. Currently arbitration related with Product Liability has not been followed up promptly because procedures and judgement from a court take for a long time. In sum, in order to solve the disputes properly, they should be supported by the arbitration system to concrete essential objectives, so to speak, protection of the victim and the improvement of arbitration. In addition, the systematic arrangements would be required to carry out all the methods above mentioned. Those are for manufacturers, importers, and customers for the dispute resolution.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.85-108
• /
• 2023

In international commercial arbitrations that arise from an international commercial contract, arbitral tribunals ruling on the merits of the arbitration apply the law governing the contract. The parties to contract are free to designate the law under the principle of parties autonomy. This paper examines this principle under the Korean Arbitration Act, and makes some legislative suggestions. For this purpose, this paper first discusses what is the scope of matters covered by the law governing the contract, what are the rules of conflict-of-laws for determining the law governing the contract, and what happens when the arbitral tribunal incorrectly applies the law governing the contract? Then, this paper further goes to examine issues such as the form of choice-of-law agreement, the explicit or implicit choice of law, the parties' ability to choose the rules of law including lex mercatoria, the change of choice-of-law agreement, the independence of choice-of-law clause.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this article is to examine the "Annulment" of ICSID Arbitration Award. Most of the international conventions provide for arbitration as the preferred method of dispute settlement. In general they either provide for ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules or under the rules of an acceptable arbitration institution, e.g. ICC, AAA, LCIA and in particular ICSID. The most distinctive feature of ICSID arbitration is the self-contained and exhaustive nature of its review procedures. Unlike other arbitration regimes, control is exercised by internal procedures rather than by the courts. Remedies against the award are limited to those provided for in the Convention and do not include court involvement. Especially, the annulment of the ICSID award by an ad hoc committee must be considered as jeopardizing ICSID Arbitration because it clearly depart from the current trends of international commercial arbitration which limits any kinds of judicial review and excludes any kinds of review on the merits. I wish that the future decisions of the ad hoc committees will restore a narrow scope to the ICSID procedure of annulment in order not to endanger the ICSID Arbitration mechanism.