• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.161-181
• /
• 2014

This thesis, which mainly focuses on the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, will mainly deal with three characteristics and analyze the causes that directly or indirectly influence them. The first characteristic is China does not recognize ad hoc arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration is the initial form of arbitration, and it occupies an important position in many countries; however, China's judicial system does not recognize it. There are many disadvantages for building a system of ad hoc arbitration in China; i. e., the arbitration system in China is undeveloped and shot-time established, and it lacks social and civil society basis, along with a credit system, which the Western ad hoc arbitration relies on. The second characteristic is the existence of excessive judicial supervision and control over arbitration in China. Judicial supervision over arbitration has been the customary practice in each country of the modern world, but sharp variation exists in the legal stipulations and the courts' attitude toward the standard to be applied in the supervision over arbitration. In China, there has always been a controversy over judicial supervision, and the standards applied in the supervision over arbitration by courts in different regions are less than identical. The last characteristic is the existence of a combination of mediation with arbitration, which is called Arb-Med in China. Such means that in the process of arbitration, the arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case it is handling if both parties agree to do so. Under the Chinese law, Arb-Med may lead to a binding and enforceable outcome. However, it has several legal disadvantages and almost no country adopts this system. China still insists that this system will go on because Arb-Med was first made in China, and its effect was proven through long-time practice in CIETAC.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.121-151
• /
• 2006

As globalisation extends its effect and particularly following China's accession to the World Trade Organization(WTO) in 2001, ever greater numbers of international transactions will feature a Chinese party. China has certainly made efforts in recent years to rectify law problem. While conducting business in China, foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals and companies. As foreign businesses invest in the extraordinary market opportunities in China, international arbitration has also become the preferred method for handling disputes with Chinese partners or with other foreign corporation over operations in China. The new Arbitration Rules of the International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) came into force on 1 May 2005. The new rules represent a major overhaul of CIETAC arbitration procedures and are sure to enhance CIETAC's position as a leading player in the resolution of China-foreign business disputes. The changes are significant for all companies doing business in China. So, this article investigated some amendments on the basis of 2000 Rules.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.55-85
• /
• 1998

Each of China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea is in international trade one of the major countries in Asia and has been influenced by the Chinese character culture and the Civil law system. All these countries have their own commercial dispute resolution system for international trade dispute and commercial arbitration mechanism in their countries. They are making their own effort to internationalize and improve their commercial arbitration system. Among these countries China enacted a new arbitration law already. At that time Chinese arbitration law was referred to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration for internationalization of Chinese commercial arbitration system. China also internationalized the panel of arbitrators by increasing the foreign arbitrators of the panel of arbitrators of CIETAC. These measures adopted by China will be the model of dispute resolution and the commercial arbitration system in other major countries in Asia.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2019

As international trades between Korea and China increase, the number of civil disputes also increases. The civil dispute settlement system and the court system in China are distinctive from those of Korea. China has its own court systems which are characterized by the Chinese Communist System. Due to the influence of the decentralized local autonomy tradition, the case laws of each Province in China are not unified throughout the China. This is partly because only two instances are provided in China, and the parties cannot appeal to the Supreme People's Court of China unless there is a special reason. In Korea, three instances are provided and parties can appeal to the Supreme Court if a party so chooses. In addition, there are many differences in the judicial environment of China compared to Korea. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a Korean party and a Chinese party, arbitration is recommended rather than court litigation. This article examines the points to be considered for interim measures in China during arbitration. Where the seat of arbitration is Korea, interim measures cannot be taken by the order of the Chinese court in the middle of or before arbitration procedures. On the other hand, it is possible to take interim measures through the Chinese court in the middle of or before the arbitration procedure in China or Hong Kong. It also reviews the points to be noted in case of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China where permission from the upper Court is required to revoke or to deny the recognition or enforcement of a foreign-related or foreign arbitration award.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.263-290
• /
• 2004

Dispute plays a key role in maintaining the desirable performance of trade transaction. Although avoidance of disputes is always a priority, it is also important to prepare methods of dispute resolution which are efficient and economical. So, understanding of chinese dispute resolution system is a necessary requirement for successful business operation with chinese companies. This article analyzed and compared with the ways of trade disputes settlement system such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation in China in order to help the Korean traders who enter into business with the chinese companies to settle their disputes efficiently. This article suggests that two methods of negotiation and mediation are more likely to be effective than arbitration and litigation to resolve disputes with chinese companies because of problems of enforcement of arbitral award and the uncertainty of China's legal system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.135-157
• /
• 2016

CISG는 국제물품매매 영역에서 가장 중요한 국제협약으로서, 많은 중재 기구에서는 중재사건을 처리함에 있어서 본 협약을 적용하여 분쟁을 해결하고 있다. 중국은 본 협약이 효력을 발생할 때부터 이미 협약의 체약국이었고 본 협약을 적용하여 여러 건의 사건을 해결하였다. 본문은 CISG가 중국에서의 법률적 지위, 중국 중재기구의 CISG에 대한 적용방법 및 적용함에 있어서의 문제점에 대하여 분석을 하고, 이에 대한 개선의견을 제기하려고 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.

• 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.