• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.57-73
• /
• 2002

Illegal fishing is often cited as a principal cause of the failure of fisheries management, expecially fishing efforts regulations in traditional fisheries management. Usually, illegal fishing problems are perceived to be equivalent to inadequate enforcement, and policy prescription then follow to strengthen enforcement programs. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the illegal fishing behavior relatively recent emphasis on fishing efforts regulations in traditional fisheries management. The analysis focuses on measuring, explaining and developing the effectiveness way of enforcement strategies responding to imperfectly managed fishing efforts regulations through illegal fishing behavior and avoid enforcement fishing efforts measures. A model of fishermen fishing behavior and profit-maximizing decision making is analyzed to determine optimal fishing at individual fisherman level in response to fishing efforts regulation. The results of economic analysis of the enforcement of illegal fishing in traditional fisheries management results are as follows: First, illegal fishing will occur only if enforcement effort is not so high as to remove the incentive to do so, and if the effectiveness of avoidance is not too great, nor its cost too low. Second, avoidance effort will occur at a level jointly proportional to the extent of illegal activity and of enforcement; for given levels of the latter, the desired avoidance effort increase with its effectiveness and decrease with its cost Third, to improve the effectiveness of enforcement, understanding avoidance behavior appears to be crucial to any efforts. Forth, enforcement and fishermen behavior interact depends strongly on characteristics of avoidance, specifically its cost and effectiveness. When avoidance is neither too cheap nor too effective, the interaction is regular. Fifth, in this case, at low levels of enforcement, fishers respond to increases in enforcement by increasing avoidance, but at higher enforcement levels, it becomes uneconomical to continue to do so, and avoidance decreases with enforcement. Sixth, illegal fishing activity decreases steadily with enforcement, so the fishery manager is able, in theory, to reduce illegal fishing toward zero by increasing enforcement. If, however, avoidance is very inexpensive and/or very efficient/ then the optimal level of avoidance will increase indefinitely with increasing enforcement. Finally, less fishery enforcement is required if fishermen have less incentive to overfish, and fishermen have less incentive to avoid fishery enforcement measures.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.263-292
• /
• 2005

In China, as far as the enforcement of the award is concerned, a three-pronged regime exists : each for domestic, foreign-related and foreign awards. As opposed to domestic awards, foreign-related awards are defined as those involving 'foreign-element.' Among them, this article focuses on the enforcement regimes of foreign-related and foreign arbitral award, and strives to provide a practical outlook of the arbitral award enforcement regime in China. For that, this article consists of five chapters. In chapter I, the purpose and scope of this study are mentioned; In Chapter II, the types, the statutory framework, the related measures, the statistical assessment on enforcement of arbitral awards are addressed. Chapter III points out some issues on the enforcement regimes of foreign-related and foreign arbitral awards, with focus paid to the recognition of foreign-related arbitral awards, the substantive judicial review of foreign-related arbitral awards, and the refusal of enforcement with the social and public interest ground. Chapter VI introduces two non-enforcement cases of foreign-related and foreign arbitral awards. Lastly in chapter V, the author makes a proposal to improve the enforcement regime in China. Although China already obtained a certain level of achievement, she still need to be undertaken by the government and judicial authorities to offset the negative effects of some obstacles to hamper the enforcement such as protectionism so that she may create a more favorable arbitration environment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.67-94
• /
• 2020

This paper examines the current enforcement regime of Korea and provides an overview of the same with focus on the changes before and after the 2016 revision of the Korean Arbitration Act. It briefly studies the pro-arbitration bias of the New York Convention, as well as the Korean judiciary's stance on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Some of the substantial issues discussed in the paper include the major procedural changes brought about by the 2016 amendment with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards. The paper also discusses the rare instances where the Korean judiciary refused to recognize or enforce an arbitral award, and the reasoning behind the refusal. The paper discusses and analyzes four court judgments that reflect the Korean judiciary's position on the enforcement of foreign and domestic arbitral awards in Korea. It focuses on the NDS v. KT Skylife case, where the court of first instance refused the enforcement on grounds that the relief granted by the arbitral tribunal was not specific enough for enforcement. Ultimately, the appellate court, although agreeing on the specificity requirement, reversed the ruling and granted an enforcement judgment on grounds that the application for enforcement had the legal interest to request an enforcement judgment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• International Journal of Highway Engineering
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2012

PURPOSES: The aim of this study is to analyze overloading control effectiveness of enforcing overweighted vehicles using HS-WIM (High-Speed Weigh-in-Motion) at main lane of expressway. METHODS: To analyze the weight distribution statistically, HS-WIM system should has an appropriate weighing accuracy. Thus, the weighing accuracy of the two HS-WIM systems was estimated by applying European specifications and ASTM (American Standards for Testing and Materials) for WIM in this study. Based on the results of accuracy test, overweight enforcement system has been operated at main lanes of two expressway routes in order to provide weight informations of overweighted vehicle in real time for enforcement squad. To evaluate the overloading control effectiveness with enforcement, traffic volume and axle loads of trucks for two months at the right after beginning of the enforcement were compared with data set for same periods before the enforcement. RESULTS: As the results of weighing accuracy test, both WIM systems were accepted to the most precise type that can be useful to applicate not only statistical purpose but enforcing on overweight vehicles directly. After the enforcement, the rate of overweighted trucks that weighed over enforcement limits had been decreased by 27% compared with the rate before the enforcement. Especially, the rate of overweighted trucks that weighed over 48 tons had been decreased by 91%. On the other hand, in counterpoint to decrease of the overweighted vehicle, the rate of trucks that weighed under enforcement limits had been increased by 7%. CONCLUSIONS: From the results, it is quite clear that overloading has been controlled since the beginning of the enforcement.

• Journal of the Korea Society for Simulation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.57-64
• /
• 2009

Stable and effective constraint enforcement system is one of the crucial components for physically-based dynamic simulations. This paper presents analysis and evaluation for traditional constraint enforcement systems(Lagrange Multiplier method, Baumgarte stabilization method, Post-stabilization method, Implicit constraint enforcement method, Fast projection method) to provide a guideline to users who need to integrate a suitable constraint enforcement system into their dynamic simulations. The mathematical formulations for traditional constraint enforcement systems are presented in this paper. This paper describes a summary of evaluation which consists of constraint error comparison, computational cost, and dynamic behavior analysis to verify the efficiency of each traditional constraint enforcement system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• International Journal of Contents
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.26-32
• /
• 2013

To date, parking enforcement systems have only been used by parking enforcement authorities, who detect and penalize violators. This paper introduces a modified version of the parking enforcement system utilizing smartphones that allows ordinary citizens to report parking violators to parking enforcement officers. The procedures of the system are taking a picture of a vehicle in violation, receiving the violation report virtually and finally reporting if violation car still remained at same location after five minutes have passed. The proposed system contains properties for transmission and receiving data about whether the complaint report of the violator's vehicle has been received in real time. It also works in conjunction with the existing parking enforcement system. This paper describes implementation of the proposed system.