• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2009

Concepts of mediation and conciliation as alternative dispute resolutions are often confusingly used. As to what is meant by mediation and conciliation, there is no uniform legal definition. However, there has been a distinction between two methods of dispute settlement under the international law (UN Charter, WTO DSU, NAFTA, EU mediation directive, WIPO Mediation Rules) although there is no clear definition on the terms of mediation and conciliation. And also under the domestic law such as U.K, France, Germany, a clear distinction has been made between two terms. Mediation means a facilitated negotiation between two parties through the intervention of a third party. A third and neutral party (mediator) help the parties in dispute to find their solution by managing a certain mediation protocol and facilitating communication between the parties while in conciliation, a third party evaluative the case and can suggest the parties a legally non-binding solution. Once the parties accept it, it becomes binding between them. However, in the U.S,, it seems that there is no practical use of distinguishing mediation and conciliation. The term of mediation is more commonly used than the term of conciliation and it has two kinds of mediation such as facilitative and evaluative mediation. Korea's conciliation system is close to conciliation or evaluative mediation. In conclusion, what is distinct between mediation and conciliation is the role of third party. If a neutral third party takes a role of advisor or facilitator, then he or she may employ a proper protocol to help the parties to find themselves their solution (mediation) while if a neutral person plays a role of evaluator, then he or she listens to the parties and suggest a solution to them (conciliation).

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

The demurrage is regarded as a kind of the ocean freight and a remuneration of the time lost for the vessel while in port. In ordinary occasions of the voyage charter, the liability of a demurrage is usually laid on the charterers unless any exceptions are incorporated. The owners are, however, often meeting somehow difficulty to secure demurrage in the field as the liability is limited or transferred to a third party from the charterers. This paper is focused on clearing the liabilities to be held by the parties involved through the English Law cases, and what's more is rendering a proper suggestions to the owners and charterers on dealing with the ship's operation business.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Letters of Credit are the most common method of payment for goods in the export trade, and banking practice relating to letters of credit is standardised by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, which are a set of rules issued by the International Chamber of Commerce. The current version is UCP 600, which took effect on July 1, 2007. To assist the practitioners of Documentary Credits, the KCCI(Koea Chamber of Commerce and Industry) authorised a new publication-Official Commentary on UCP 600. This new publication added the word "official" in the title. In order to being an official commentary, the terms and expression should be correct and unified. But there is some problems in official commentary and legal phraseology. The problem was appeared that ICC UCP 600's were translated into Korean UCP 600 version. For example, "Issuing Bank", "Applicant", "Port of discharge", "A date of pick-up", "Shipper's load and count", "Courier Receipt", "Charter Party", "Bill of Lading", "Cover Note", "Exclusion Clause", "Insurance Certificate", "Declaration, Underwriter". If can be used 'Official Commentary on UCP 600', the above statements should be a compliment though take a wide professional opinions or held a public hearings. The Purpose of this paper is to point out the problems and substitute the term used and unify the expression in official commentary.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.38 no.5
• /
• pp.471-477
• /
• 2014

In general, a regular charterparty form is used as a charterparty for tugboats which are employed in marine construction and a bareboat charter form is generally used for barge boat charterparty. As the tug-barge charterparty which are currently used do not have a standardised form, contracting parties arbitrarily decide on the terms and conditions of the contract. As a result, provisions of the charterparty usually do not specify in the contract which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. Furthermore, the terminologies used in the charterparty are different from legal terms of current commercial law which causes confusion. These problems can be solved mostly by clarifying the legal character of the charterparty between the contracting parties and by conforming the terminologies. In addition, endeavour to standardise the contract form must be carried forward at the same time. This research purports to study actual condition of current charterparty for tug-barge ship which are employed to marine construction and to suggest systematic improvement plan. For this purpose, this research focuses on studying cases in which dispute arose due to lack of clarity in the provisions of the contract with regard to which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. This research also purports to suggest forming the standardised contract terms of the charterparty as one way of solution and examine matters to be attended in writing a standardised form.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.25 no.6
• /
• pp.708-716
• /
• 2019

After the Sewol ferry disaster, the maritime safety supervisor system was introduced to strengthen maritime safety control for coastal vessels. If any critical defect is found in vessel facilities during periodical or occasional guidance and supervision on a vessel, a maritime safety supervisor takes an administrative measure: detention of the vessel until it has been completely corrected. The detention order is one of the most powerful regulations exercised by a maritime safety supervisor. It would not be an overstatement to say that the guidance and supervision conducted by a maritime safety supervisor is very important for the safety of a vessel and protection of the maritime environment. However, the regulatory level of each Regional Office of Oceans and Fisheries toward vessels may vary with the enforcers, and an individual's intentional act or negligence might occur during the execution process. Detention of a coastal vessel by the Regional Office of Ocean and Fisheries can easily lead to delayed navigation, and a vessel owner may suffer economic loss from suspension of a charter party. Nevertheless, the Maritime Safety Act does not prescribe filing a petition for objection to the measure of detention order by a maritime safety supervisor. To overcome this problem, therefore, the objection procedure under the Maritime Safety Act has to be reformed to reclaim a right against an inappropriate detention order measure caused by an individual's intentional act or negligence through a formal objection.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

The study attempts to verify the case related to the notice of payment refusal by issuing bank regarding discrepancy in transport document under L/C(Letter of Credit) transaction. Considering the high portion of trade between Korea and China, Korean companies and banks in L/C transaction should be careful about many unpredictable situations. The case of this study is that Chinese seller(beneficiary) initiated a civil suit against Industrial Bank of Korea to Chinese court and Chinese courts in the first and second trials judged that the notice of payment refusal by Industrial bank of Korea doesn't satisfy Article 16, (c) (ii) (iii) in UCP 600. However, Industrial Bank of Korea implements the judgement even though the judgement is highly biased to Chinese seller. Considering the judgement by Chinese courts, the study suggests some countermeasures to Korean companies and banks which opened L/C. First, the issuing bank should describe the contents of discrepancy specifically based on Article 16, (c) in UCP 600. Second, it is necessary to insert a clause regarding governing law in the L/C contract like sales contract. Third, considering the biased judgement by Chinese court and difficulty in execution of foreign judgement in China, it is recommended to using arbitration as a method of dispute resolution such as ICLOCA and DOCDEX Rules which are international system operated by international instruments because it has legal effects to parties in L/C contracts if the issuing bank inserts arbitration clause in L/C.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.60-77
• /
• 2020

An assumption can be made that, as a start point for the recognition and utilization of cultural heritage, the "choice" of such would reflect the cultural ideology of the ruling power at that time. This has finally been proved by the case of Korea in the 20th century. First, in the late Korean Empire (1901-1910), the prevailing cultural ideology had been inherited from the Joseon Dynasty. The main objects that the Joseon Dynasty tried to protect were royal tombs and archives. During this time, an investigation by the Japanese into Korean historic sites began in earnest. Stung by this, enlightened intellectuals attempted to recognize them as constituting independent cultural heritage, but these attempts failed to be institutionalized. During the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation, the Japanese led investigations to institutionalize Korean cultural heritage, which formed the beginning of the current cultural heritage management system. At that time, the historical investigation, designation, protection, and enhancement activities led by the Japanese Government-General of Korea not only rationalized their colonial occupation of Korea but also illustrated their colonial perspective. Korean nationalists processed the campaign for the love of historical remains on an enlightening level, but they had their limits in that the campaign had been based on the outcome of research planned by the Japanese. During the 1945-2000 period following liberation from Japan, cultural heritage restoration projects took places that were based on nationalist ideology. People intended to consolidate the regime's legitimacy through these projects, and the enactment of the 'Cultural Heritage Charter' in 1997 represented an ideology in itself that stretched beyond a means of promoting nationalist ideology. During the past 20 centuries, cultural heritage content changed depending on the whims of those with political power. Such choices reflected the cultural ideology that the powers at any given time held with regard to cultural heritage. In the background of this cultural heritage choice mechanism, there have been working trade-off relationships formed between terminology and society, as well as the ideological characteristics of collective memories. The ruling party has tried to implant their ideology on their subjects, and we could consider that it wanted to achieve this by being involved in collective memories related to traditional culture, so called-choice, and utilization of cultural heritage.