• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.613-630
• /
• 2004

Conciliation is one of the most effective ADR(alternative dispute resolution) which takes the place of civil procedure. It is achieved with disputants' independent will. The disputants negotiate each other, and make peaceful settlement. If a compromise is effected between the two, it regards the compromise as a judgement of the Supreme Court. This effect on the conciliation is afford a basis for the private autonomies. But nowadays, the practical use of the private autonomies is not thoroughgoing enough in our country. It is a matter of no uncommon occurrence for the member of a conciliation commission to form a conclusion about the dispute and to persuade the disputants to accept the conclusion. Even the judges have a tendency to conduct a conciliation like civil procedure. Under these circumstances, it's harsh to the disputants that a compromise in the conciliation has an effect like the judgement of the Supreme Court. So you should reconsider carefully the role or service of a conciliation commission. The role of a conciliation commission must be to guarantee an atmosphere of freedom, and for disputants to negotiate without restraint. So the members of a conciliation commission should make an offer the disputants the information on the members and proceedings of the conciliation. It will make the disputants have a firm belief that the members are fair and conciliation will be progressed in a fair. Moreover they have to notify the disputants of the estimated norms which is concerned in the dispute, too. It will facilitate the negotiation and compromise, and will justify claim preclusion(res judicata) which is based on Korean Civil Conciliation Law(Article 29) says that conciliation has the full force and effect of a civil judgement of the Supreme Court.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• 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).

• 국제지역연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.371-389
• /
• 2009

근래 우리나라의 특별시·광역시·도 및 시·군·구 등 전국적으로 유통분쟁조정위원회 조례가 제정 또는 개정되고 있다. 이는 유통산업발전법에 의거하여 각 지방자치단체에서 유통분쟁조정위원회를 설치하고 운영하기위한 것이다. 특별시·광역시·도에 설치된 유통분쟁조정위원회는 각 시·군·구에 설치 된 유통분쟁조정위원회에서 행하여 진 조정에 대하여 불복이 있는 경우 불복 신청된 조정에 대하여 조정하게 된다. 따라서 특별시·광역시·도의 유통분쟁조정위원회는 시·군·구 유통분쟁조정위원회의 상급의 조정위원회라고 할 수 있다. 이들 조례에 의한 유통분쟁조정위원회의 조정을 위한 규정에 여러 가지 문제점이 나타나고 있다. 또한 유통분쟁조정에 대한 역사가 일천하고 축적된 경험이 없어 그 운영에도 어려움이 예상되고 있다. 그리하여 이 논문에서는 이 같은 우리나라유통분쟁조정위원회의 조정제도의 문제점을 각 지자체의 조례에 근거하여 찾아보고 또한 실제 유통분쟁위원회의 조정시에 고려하여야 할 사항을 모색하였다. 유통분쟁조정위원회 조례상의 문제점으로서는 위원회위원장의 선임문제를 비롯하여 위원장의 직무대행, 위원회 회의 의결, 조정신청의 통합, 유통분쟁조정위원회 위원의 기피 등을 지적하고 그 해결방안을 제시하였다. 또한 실제 조정시의 우선적인 고려사항으로서는 대규모유통업자와 지역 도소매업자 상생의 원칙을 비롯한 상호협력방안을 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.97-116
• /
• 2007

This article has the objective of studying French ADR System which is unique and peculiar in the world. Nowadays commercial conflict is resolved by litigation or ADR. ADR plays an important part in resolving commercial conflict in the US, England, Germany, Japan and France. Untill now, only French ADR System has not been studied at all in Korea. So we can safely say that it is necessary to research into French ADR System in order to improve Korea's ADR System. This study is composed of Introduction, Concept of French ADR System, Actual Circumstances of French ADR System and Conclusion. The Fundamental system of French ADR is the law of February 8, 1995 that is made up of 82 articles. Among these articles, Judical Conciliation and Mediation are the most important. It is universally admitted by most of legal scholars that judicial conciliation and mediation have the character of contract. Because mutual consent is necessary in order for judicial conciliation and mediation to be effective. French system of judicial conciliation and mediation is provided in French Civil Procedure Law. Judicial conciliation plays an important role in Labor Law and Family Law. In the early part of litigation, the attempt of consiliation can be made very frequently in France. Successful conciliation and mediation are induced into negociation between parties. Arbitration has its long history in Europe. In the medieval times, Western European merchant began to use Arbitration System. After the medieval times had passed, Arbitration System took root in France. But Arbitration System has not so developed in France. On the other hand, Arbitration System has developed to a considerable degree in the US in spite of its short history. It is due to the fact that the French dislike to have recourse to litigation as compared with the Americans. However Arbitration can resolve securities conflict through various institutions in France, which is very similar to the concerned US phenomenon.

• 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.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.49-73
• /
• 2012

2000년 이후 한-인도간 교역규모가 증대함에 따라, 양국간 분쟁 또한 증가가 예상된다. 국내기업이 인도기업과 분쟁을 효율적이면서 효과적으로 해결하기 위하여는 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결방법(Alternative Dispute Resolution; ADR)에 대한 이해가 중요하다. 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결제도의 특징으로는 첫째, 협상, 조정(conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat) 및 중재에 의한 해결방법이 주요 ADR제도이고, 둘째, 인도는 중재 조정법에 의하여 조정(conciliation)에 관한 별도의 규정을 마련하여 강제력을 부여하고 있으며, 셋째, 조정제도는 크게 conciliation, mediation 및 Lok Adalat로 구분할 수 있다. 한국기업들이 인도기업과 분쟁을 해결하는 방법을 다음과 같이 제언하고자 한다. 첫째, 향후 인도기업과 투자나 거래를 하고자 하는 한국기업들은 ADR제도를 활용하여 분쟁을 해결하여야 하며, 둘째, 이를 위해 인도의 각 ADR제도에 대한 지식을 사전에 습득하고 각 분쟁 상황에 맞는 유용한 ADR방법을 선택하여야 한다. 셋째, 협상력을 강화하여야 하며, 넷째, 인도의 공공분야에 직접투자를 할 경우에는 Lok Adalat 제도를 숙지하여 이에 대하여 적극적으로 대처하여야 하며, 마지막으로 분쟁이 발생한 경우 해결방법을 찾는 것보다 분쟁을 예방하는 것이 중요하다 하겠다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.181-215
• /
• 2001

The thirty-fourth session of UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration was held in New York. Among the topics discussed at the session, many delegations agreed to reform the article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in light of the development of electronic commerce. As for the article 2(2) of the New York Convention, it was agreed to reflect the changes of the article 7 not in the form of a treaty amendment but in the form of an interpretative statement. The topic as to provisional measures has been found so difficult to reach an agreement that most of its texts submitted by the secretariat were left untouched for the lack of time. However, most provisions of the legislative texts on conciliation were dealt with by delegations. The next session is to be held in Vienna. While the Korean Arbitration Act of 1966 was fully amended in 1999, it seems interesting to look at the development in which the arbitration community of the world has already begun discussing the new dimension of the law and practice of international commercial arbitration. It may be considered early to start a new project of reforming the Korean Arbitration Act at this time when only three years passed after it was fully amended. It is, however, worthwhile to remember that some progressive efforts were aborted in amending the Arbitration Act of 1966. One of them is about the same issue on the insertion of some provisions on the enforcement of interim measures of protection to which the priority is given by the Working Group. It seems fair to say that it would not be dangerous to follow the developments and to adapt ourselves to such trends shown in the session. In Korea, the words “arbitration” and “conciliation” are misleadingly interchanged although these two words should be differentiated from each other in the sense of third-party binding decision. It is self-evident from the Korean Arbitration Act and judicial decisions that arbitral awards bind the disputing parties and are to be treated as final judgements by the competent courts. It is, however, not uncommon to find that the word “arbitration” is misinterpreted as having the same meaning of the word “conciliation”. One of the reasons for the confusion is that many legislations in Korea provide for conciliation as having the meaning of arbitration and vice versa. It may be probable that the proposed legislative texts on conciliation could be a kind of useful method to prevent such confusion from being uncontrollable. It is, therefore, necessary that the legislative texts should be introduced into Korea as a legislation on conciliation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2011

These days utilization of copyright in daily life and economic activities is becoming more important than ever, and IT technology is developing day by day. Along with those fact, copyright infringement and dispute is naturally increasing. This thesis dealt with the 3 different issues of ADR on copyright. The First part, introduce ADR system that was performed by Korea Copyright Committee according to Copyright law. This paper evaluate the committee's efforts to provide resolution of copyright disputes via conciliation was effective. So it needs to be look over several countries' ADR, beside conventional judicial remedy. And Korea's copyright conciliation system which is successfully operating also introduced. Second, In many countries, including South Korea are take advantage of conciliation as the way to settle down the dispute over copyright. Furthermore, looked over if we can use arbitration as tool to settle dispute or not. Currently in Korea, patent dispute is handled by Industrial Property Dispute Conciliation Committee(The Invention Promotion Act Ch.5) and Layout-design Review and Mediation Committee(The Act on the Layout-designs of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Art.29-34), but using performance of those two committee is still too low. In comparison, the copyright committee, a affiliation organization of the ministry of culture, sports and tourism has much more result in conciliation compare with patent dispute. Copyright disputes has arbitrability of it's subject-matter and many regulating organs are interested in it. (especially, binding of arbitral award and final resolution). Take advantage of both conciliation and arbitration could be good way to resolve copyright disputes. Third, the writer look at the proposal on the creation of Northeast Regional Center for Intellectual Property ADR. Because of the nature of copyright and rapid development of internet technology, international use of work become more frequent and accordingly infringement cases are increasing. The role of commercial arbitration regimes and institutions which has progressed significantly worldwide level, but which has only just begun in the intellectual property ADR area, leads also to a clash of often very different legal cultures and protection in a market economy. International cooperation in regional area with conflict interests becomes an important alternative. But it will depend on the building of regional institutions and mechanisms. The feasibility of this proposal and preconditions were examined. Establishment of new international organization requires a lot of time, cost and efforts. And risk of failure is much too high. Therefore factual, statistical review should be preceded. In addition, technical measures, such as on-line arbitration is necessary to review also. Furthermore in order to establish new organization, the relative law, legal environment, public sentiment and international compliance must be carefully considered with factual review about the needs and economic benefits of each country Yet on complex regulatory matters such as IP and ADR, a great deal of the potential benefits from international standards arises not from the international legal framework nor even the formal content of national legislation, but from the informed and effective use made of the possibilities within the system, including by policymakers and regulators.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.71-92
• /
• 2012

The significant increase in international trade over the last few decades has been accompanied by an increase in the number of commercial disputes between Korea and India. Understanding the Indian dispute resolution system, including arbitration, is necessary for successful business operation with Indian companies. This article investigates characteristics of India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act in order to help then traders who enter into business with Indian companies to settle their disputes efficiently. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act(1996) based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976, has a number of characteristics including the following: (i) this act covers ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration (ii) parties to the arbitration agreement have no option except arbitration in case of any dispute (iii) the parties can choose their own laws, places, procedures, and arbitrators (iv) the decision of the arbitrators is final and binding (v)role of the court has been minimized and (vi) enforcement of foreign awards is recognized. However, there have been some court decisions that have not been in tune with the spirit and provisions of the Act. Therefore, Korean companies insert the KCAB's standard arbitration clause into their contracts and use India's ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) Methods to strategically resolve their disputes. Additionally, Korean companies investigate Indian companies' credit standing before entering into business relations with them.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.106-131
• /
• 1995

Nowadays there are a lot of medical accidents and medical disputes in Korea. Our government has made efforts to legislate The Medical Disputes Conciliation Law for several years. But this law has many problems. These problems are followings. 1. the problem of going certainly through compulsory screening panels before coming to court. 2. the possibility in making the impartial screening panels for malpractice claims 3. the utilization of a mutual aid association to have low efficiency in paying for damages by medical malpractice and so on. To resolve medical disputes rapidly, we must legislate The Medical Disputes Conciliation Law in a short time. However, all medical disputes are not rationally dissolved by only this law, The Medical Lsw(Arztrecht) is needed to improve the solubility of medical disputes through setting up the decision criteria.