• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.89-120
• /
• 2006

If the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue in international business transactions, it is the key point how we shall determine the applicable law by national rules for the conflict of laws, or by other methods. The argument in determination of the applicable law to the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement is related to regal nature of the arbitration agreement. As there are foreign factors in international arbitration, therefore we must consider such an aspect. Besides, we have to examine whether the general theory of contract is universally applicable to the arbitration agreement. Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the arbitration agreement. However, it is a difficult problem to recognize the applicable law chosen by the parties, whether it is based on any regal standard(for example New York Convention or the private international law or the essential quality of the arbitration agreement). In the light of the actual transactions, when the parties don't make a choice of the applicable law expressly, it will finally come down to presuming the party's implied intent. Nevertheless, finding the implied intent is a difficult problem. Some argue that we shall presume the choice of applicable law by an objective standard such as a place of arbitration, to prevent too much expansion of the scope of the recognition. But we need to review that this interpretation harmonizes with the principle of party autonomy. Especially, if we desire to detect the vital point where it is most closely linked to the arbitration agreement, we have to inquire how we will decide such a relation by means of any standard. However, as the existing Arbitration Act doesn't offer the solution to these issues, therefore we have to settle these problems through the development of adjudications and theories.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the party's autonomy principle and the applicable law to the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the arbitrability of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the contracting ability of the arbitration agreement, and the applicable law to the method of the arbitration agreement. If no choice of law is made by the parties with respect to the arbitration agreement-which is the stand situation-the validity of the agreement may have to decided under its proper law, or under the law of the place of arbitration, or the law of the place of enforcement. If the subject matter is not arbitrable, the arbitration agreement remains without effect. The rules determining arbitrability may differ from one country to another, from one legal system to another. If a party is lacking capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked. This principle is laid down in the New Yark Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The validity of an arbitration agreement sometimes also depends on the form in which it is made. Article II. 2 of the New York Convention states that the term 'agreement in writing' shall include an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties of contained in exchange of letters or telegrams.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제29권
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2006

The governing law in international commercial arbitration may be divided into governing arbitration law and governing substantive law. The former governs the parties' arbitration agreement and the conduct of any subsequent arbitration. But the later governs the parties' substantive rights and obligations, which means the law that governs contract formation and performance, and the law to be applied by the arbitrator to the merits of the dispute. The purpose of this paper is to examine how to determine the substantive governing law when there is express choice or implied choice between parties. Moreover this author checked any restrictions on party autonomy and also any possibilities to deviate from the governing law. In case of express choice the sources of the law or rules of law might be the national law of one of the parties, the neutral law, the general principles of law or lex mercatoria according to the arbitration law selected by the arbitral tribunal. Some arbitration laws or rules empower the arbitrator to decide the case ex aequo et bono or to act as amiable compositions. If the governing law could be determined expressly or impliedly by the parties, the arbitral tribunal would make a selection. In this case the criteria for selecting a governing law are not exactly same from country to country. But failing any indication by the parties as to governing law, the arbitral tribunal should apply the rules of law, the law or the law under the rule of conflict that the arbitrators consider applicable, according to the governing arbitration law. Among the connecting factors offered by the conflict rules, (which means the factors that the arbitrators consider applicable), some legal systems give precedence to the formation of the contract, other system to the place of performance of the contract, and others to the closest connection or centre of gravity. But the Rome Convention, which unified the conflict rules of the contracting states, gives precedence to the law of the domicile of the party which has to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract. Finally this author suggested the Choice of Law Clause which covers governing substantive law and governing arbitration law at the same time. Thus the UNIDROIT Principles as well as any national law may be included as a governing law in international arbitration. So when we make sales or service contract, we should take into consideration of the UNIDROIT Principles as a governing law or a supplement to the governing law.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제44호
• /
• pp.487-538
• /
• 2013

최근에는 지식재산권의 국제적 이용이 보편화되면서 라이센스 계약 관련 분쟁에 있어 다국적 요소가 개입되는 경우가 많아 실제 분쟁의 해결에 있어서도 준거법의 결정이 가장 첨예한 쟁점이 되고 있다. 특히 2011년 7월 한-EU FTA가 발효됨에 따라 우리나라와 유럽 각국 사이에 경제적 사회적 교류가 활발해지면서 그로 인한 법적 분쟁 또한 증가할 것으로 예상된다. 이러한 상황을 고려할 때 국제적 지식재산권 이용 계약과 관련하여 유럽연합(EU)의 준거법 결정 원칙에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 지식재산권 라이센스 계약과 관련하여 발생하는 국제분쟁에 있어서의 준거법 결정을 위해서는 기본적으로 국제사법 원칙에 의한 유형화가 필요하며 이때 지식재산권 라이센스 계약은 그 성질상 계약의 문제로 유형화된다. 유럽연합(EU)의 경우에는 라이센스 계약상의 쟁점 판단을 위한 준거법 결정을 위하여 기본적으로 로마 I 규정(the Rome I Regulation)의 적용을 검토하여야 한다. 그런데 분쟁의 대상이 되는 계약이 체결된 시점에 따라 국제사법 일반원칙, 로마협약(1980), 로마 I 규정 등 각각의 경우에 적용되는 규범이 달라지므로 계약 체결 시점을 파악하는 것이 가장 우선되어야 하고, 이들 중 로마 I 규정은 2009년 12월 17일부터 체결된 계약에 적용된다. 계약상의 분쟁에 관한 준거법 결정에 있어서는 기본적으로 당사자의 합의에 의한 준거법의 지정이 널리 허용되지만, 당사자의 합의에 의하여 준거법을 결정할 수 없는 경우에는 국제사법 이론상 '객관적 연결 방식'에 의하여 준거법이 결정된다. 이러한 원칙을 반영하여 로마 I 규정 제4조 제1항은 계약의 유형에 따른 준거법 결정 원칙을 제시하고 있지만 지식재산권 라이센스 계약이 해당되는 규정은 없다. 결국 로마 I 규정 제4조 제2항이 검토되어야 하고 로마 I 규정 제4조 제3항에 의하여 해당 계약이 더 밀접한 관련을 가지는 국가가 있는 경우에는 이 국가의 법이 준거법으로 적용된다. 이들 규정에 의하여서도 라이센스 계약의 준거법을 결정할 수 없는 경우에는 최종적으로 로마 I 규정 제4조 제4항에 의하여 해당 계약과 가장 밀접한 관련을 가지는 국가의 법이 준거법으로 결정된다. 이러한 로마 I 규정을 중심으로 지식재산권 라이센스 계약의 준거법 결정 원칙에 대한 연구를 수행함으로써 향후 우리나라와 유럽연합 국가들이 준거법 결정의 연결점으로서 작용할 수 있는 관련 국제계약 분쟁의 해결을 위하여 보다 체계적이고 효과적인 대응책을 마련할 수 있을 것으로 생각되며, 우리나라 국제사법 규정을 적용함에 있어서도 보다 풍부한 이론적 기초를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제25권
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2005

Arbitration is a creature of contract. The parties agree that selective dispute resolution clause provides them with a choice to litigate or arbitrate certain disputes. Under the agreements, the parties had the option in the action. In the event any dispute arises between the parties concerning our representation or payment of our fees and disbursements which cannot be promptly resolved to our mutual satisfaction, you agree that dispute will be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. The selective arbitration agreement has become an accepted method of dispute resolution. However, the trend of dispute settlement has changed. The selective arbitrations clauses are to be construed as broadly as possible, and arbitration will be compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.