• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.343-405
• /
• 2009

This paper is to discuss essential business of hospital business. While the labor world and ILO made continuous recommendation for improvements towards the compulsory arbitration system along with the controversy over unconstitutionality of the system, the Constitutional Court ruled that the system is constitutional on December 23, 1996(90hunba19) and on May 15, 2003 (2001hunga31). Despite this decision from the Constitutional Court, there has been much controversy over whether the compulsory arbitration system infringes the rights of collective action against the principle of trade union & labor relations adjustment which allows Commissioner of the Labor Relations Commission to decide on submission of arbitration by virtue of his/her authority in case where industrial disputes take place in the essential public-service businesses. The revision on the above provision was closely examined from the year 2003 and an agreement was made on the abolition of the compulsory arbitration system and the introduction of essential business with a grand compromise among labor unions, employers and the government on September 11, 2006 followed by revision(Essential business system enacted on January 1, 2008) of the Trade Union & Labor Relations Adjustment Act on December 30 in the same year. Accordingly, in order to perform the essential business, parties to labor relations must have an agreement or obtain a decision by the Labor Relations Commission before taking industrial actions. This paper firstly examined the concept of essential public-service businesses and essential business, legal meaning of essential business, procedures for making agreement and decision and legal effects. Secondly it intensively explored a theory against the principle of the legality which was raised from some part of society. In other words, it is claimed that a theory against the principle of the legality is not consistent with the rule of legislation and some abstract wording is against void for vagueness doctrine because part of crime constitution requirements is delegated to the Presidential Decree or to consultation among parties to labor relations. But analysis on the rule of legislation and void for vagueness doctrine reflected in the decision by the Constitutional Court led that argument for a theory against the principle of the legality is not reasonable. Close examination was done on a formal act of essential business agreement and necessity of prior agreement before submission of decision to the Labor Relations Commission which might have difficulties in performing work. In addition, an example agreement on hospital essential business is attached to help you understand this paper better.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.73-86
• /
• 2011

Today's arbitrations see themselves as the most effective scheme for dispute resolution in a variety of transactional context. While some kind of ADR system was already introduced in Korea as of 2007 with revision of the Consumer Basic Law, consumers' needs in dispute resolution remain unmet. Recently one consumer arbitration case divides the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, the result of the case is expected to affect tens of millions of arbitration agreements in the States which has the most developed scheme in consumer arbitrations. While Arbitration clauses in adhesion contracts are not automatically held to be substantively unconscionable, Class action waivers are one of the most controversial issues in consumer arbitration. In this study, with the theoretical background of consumer arbitrations general, and contractual defenses against adhesive contracts, reviewed are U.S. federal courts' attitudes toward certain consumer arbitration agreements including the class arbitration waiver. Moreover, several issues in AT&T case are examined for practical implications for consumer dispute resolution. All of these are expected to initiate further research to find some guidelines for the proper status and operation of consumer arbitration here in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.167-184
• /
• 2008

The economic cooperation between the South and North Koreas is a very important issue for the unification and economic development of both Koreas. In order to reach a successful economic cooperation, there is a need to coordinate the differences of the two countries before unification. The economic cooperation and the cooperation in other sectors will be followed by the entire unification. It is necessary to prepare a mechanism that could peacefully solve the conflicts and disputes that could arise during the actual process of cooperation, which will secure stable investments and trades. The study on the possibility of introducing the arbitration system as a conflict solving mechanism between the two Koreas is a very important subject, and the basis of this study is on the examination of the arbitration laws of North Korea. Therefore, the study on the efficiency of the North Korean arbitration laws on foreign economy is studying the possibility of a systematical solution to economic conflicts between the South and North Koreas. The problems and possible solutions of the North Korean foreign economy arbitration laws are summarized as follows. First, juridical cooperation system for both South and North courts of justice needs to be set up to smoothly carry out the main procedures. Mutual correspondence and telecommunication needs to be guaranteed, also remittance and the movement of goods shall precede. Second, the free liquidation of businesses by unit and the individual and independent management of wealth of the North Korean economic bodies, organizations and businesses shall precede to independently liquidate wealth and thus make arbitration possible. Third, amendments in the North Korea's foreign economy arbitration law shall be made to some parts of regulations on arbitration agreements and specific contents of written arbitration agreements to avoid conflicts regarding arbitration agreement. Fourth, the members of the North Korean arbitration committee shall impartially manage the committee only without taking the role of arbitrator, and the clause that allows the North Korean committee to nominate the arbitrator shall be erased. In case an agreement regarding the number of arbitrators is not reached, the three arbitrators general rule shall be applied. In case of requests from any of the parties, a third country arbitrator nomination shall be guaranteed. Also, the requested arbitrator by the party shall be nominated with the cooperation of the court. Fifth, the trial in case of non-appearance or written trial shall be added to the North Korean law in to prevent intended negligence or evasion. Sixth, regulations regarding the court's investigation of evidence shall be added to the North Korean law to make fair arbitration possible in case that government power is needed in order to investigate evidence. Seventh, provisions regarding majority decision shall be added in the North Korean law in the impossibility of unanimous decisions, and the certified system in the arbitration committee official text shall be erased to prevent arrogation and assure the power of the decision made by the arbitration government. Eighth, as "the wrong decision approved" reason for cancellation of arbitration in the North Korean law includes the content of the decision made by the arbitrator could lead to uselessness of arbitration, amendment will be necessary to limit it to legitimacy of the arbitration agreement and wrong procedures. It is hoped that this thesis will be of important use in understanding the issues on the workability and the solutions to the South and North Koreas' arbitration that could be presented during the negotiations for the countries' economic cooperation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.53-77
• /
• 2012

Competence-competence refers to an arbitratorpower to determine whether he or she has jurisdiction to decide a controversy. Although arbitrators power to rule on their own jurisdiction is generally recognized throughout the world, in the United States, neither the courts nor legislative bodies have recognized its significance or the reasoning behind its widespread adoption. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is notorious among arbitration statues for its failure to incorporate competence-competence. When courts rule on an issue of competence-competence, it is referred to as a question of who decides the arbitrability of the case. In the United States, the use of competence-competence as a term of art is still limited to scholarly writings. The answer to the competence-competence inquiry is found in an interpretation of section 3 of the FAA which empowers the courts to decide arbitrability issues. The cases of the Supreme Court and most commentators interpreted sections 2 and 3 of the FAA as conferring issues of arbitrability on the federal courts, including the ability to rule on the validity and scope of the arbitral agreement. Traditionally, United States courts have denied the competence-competence to arbitral tribunal. Recently, however, they have confounded the rules by placing primary importance on the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has underscored the necessity of giving full effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement to arbitrate. The result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on contractualism in determining the issue of arbitrability is most evident in the Courtdecision in the First Options case. Under First Options, courts are to decide arbitrability issues unless there is a clear and unmistakable contractual assignment of these issues to the tribunal itself. The Court is appraised that it has attempted to compromise between contractual freedom in the arbitration setting and the rule of law that is necessary in a society that depends on the concept of ordered liberty. In the decision in Howsam, the Court clarified the definition of arbitrability by attempting to draw a clear line between questions of arbitrability that are to be decided by courts and those matters that bear on the allocation of decisions between courts and arbitrators but are not questions of arbitrability.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.89-121
• /
• 2015

Investor-State Dispute Settlement(ISDS) grants a foreign investor the right to access an international arbitrator, if he believes actions taken by a host government are in breach of commitments made in an investment agreement or an investment treaty. The arbitration procedure of ICSID is made specifically to resolve investment disputes, so most of investment disputes have been settled in accordance with the procedure. Owing to limitation of dispute settlements through the ICSID arbitration procedure, several investment dispute conciliation schemes have been emerged as alternatives. In the case of a conciliation, the conciliation procedure will be in progress based on arbitrary agreement between parties, and if both parties agree on a conciliation program, then the arbitrary execution rate is relatively higher than that of arbitration procedures. In addition, it is evaluated that the time duration of conducting a conciliation procedure is in general rather short in 8 to 24months, and its incumbent cost is also rather inexpensive. Most of all, through amicable settlement of a dispute between a foreign investor and a host state, the foreign investor may continue his investment activities without a hitch, while the host state may invite more investment without any risk of losing its external credibility. In conclusion, it is desirable to lead any investment dispute between a foreign investor and a host state settle in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure as specified in the relevant investment agreement. In addition, to make the foreign investor continue his investment activities, it will be necessary to provide a separate investment dispute conciliation system aside from such arbitration procedures to cope any unexpected incident flexibly.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.25-53
• /
• 2013

With the Korea-China FTA negotiations currently on the line, the importance of research into the FTA dispute settlement system has been increasing. In this paper, a comparison of Korea and China's FTA dispute settlement agreements concluded with ASEAN is contemplated, and implications for the future of the Korea-China FTA have been suggested. The FTA dispute settlement agreements with ASEAN concluded by both Korea and China provide perspectives on both sides. This agreement with ASEAN also provides a standard for the potential Korea-China FTA agreement. Specifically, the basis of these agreements with ASEAN is the same, although there are clear distinctions, described in a more detailed manner. A problem arises when there has been no discussion on dispute settlement agreements in Korea, especially of the agreement with ASEAN, whereas the opposite is true of the China counterpart. In this paper, Chinese academic FTA dispute settlement agreement studies have been also examined.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권3호
• /
• pp.3-19
• /
• 2020

With the advent of the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the U.S. and an increase in trade volume between the two countries, the possibility of commercial disputes has escalated among international merchants. It has been well-known that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution is an efficient way to resolve international commercial disputes. When arbitral awards are enforced in the judicial system, the court will inevitably have to be involved with the enforcement procedures. The court is a typical legal entity to confirm arbitral awards. Through a confirmation process, the winning party obtains the same legal status of final judgment rendered by the court. However, a winning party in arbitration will have to overcome a legal hurdle in the enforcement process of arbitral awards. This article aims to investigate how the courts control the arbitration practices and what the basic legal issues in the enforcement of arbitral awards are. The US Federal Arbitration Act is investigated, while relevant cases are reviewed and updated for legal analysis.