• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2006

Enforcement of an arbitration award is an extremely important issue in arbitration. Arbitration, as a dispute settlement process, is rendered meaningless if it is not possible to enforce an award rendered by an arbitration tribunal. On the other hand, the present international arbitration system guided by the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law is established on the dual supervision from the national courts. The nationality of the international arbitral award closely relates to the supervision of the national court, and the national court is entitled to decide the nationality of the international award in accordance with the conditions set in its own domestic law. The national court may set aside arbitral award made in its territory while the foreign court may refuge enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to its own law and international convention to which it is a party. The conditions set in the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China are in agreement with those set in the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Chinese national court is entitled to set aside international awards made in China in accordance with the Chinese Law. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the Chinesr practice on the revocation of international commercial arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• 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.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.357-369
• /
• 2006

All over the country tries to clarify the content of 'Public Policy' in recognition and implementation of Foreign Arbitral Awards : it makes comments of the international consensus of Geneva Convention(1927), New York Convention(1958) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Policy, and it takes a general view of domestic laws how they deal with Public policy and Foreign Arbitral Awards. Foreign Arbitral Awards should be appropriately respected and implementation by the courts of countries encourage parties in a legal procedure to refuse enforcement by invoking "Public Policy." In order to cope with such invocations, the purport of the above recommendation on Foreign Arbitral Awards should be internationally recognized and the exceptional circumstances should be restricted unless the International Court of Arbitral Awards is not established a Dr. Holtzmann/Schwebel brought forward. In this paper suggests the list of the exceptional circumstances. Korean Arbitration Law stipulates as the Civil proceeding Law did, "good morals and the social order of the Republic of Korea" as a ground for refusing enforcement of Arbitral Awards. Studies on counteraction against invocations of Public Policy to refuse enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards should be developed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.225-261
• /
• 2005

Under Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall supply (a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof and (b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In addition, if the arbitral award or arbitration agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, and the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. In a case where a Vietnamese company which had obtained a favorable arbitral award in Vietnam applied for recognition and enforcement of a Vietnamese arbitral award before a Korean court, the recent Korean Supreme Court Judgment (Docket No. 2004 Da 20180. 'Judgment') rendered on December 12, 2004 has alleviated the document requirements as follows : The Judgment held that (i) the party applying for recognition andenforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not have to strictly comply with the document requirements when the other party does not dispute the existence and the content of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement and that (ii) in case the translation submitted to the court does not satisfy the requirement of Article 4, the court does not have to dismiss the case on the ground that the party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award has failed to comply with the translation requirement under Article 4, and instead may supplement the documents by obtaining an accurate Korean translation from an expert translator at the expense of the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In this regard, the author fully supports the view of the Judgment. Finally, the Judgment held that, even though the existence of a written arbitration agreement was not disputed at the arbitration, there was no written arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and wenton to repeal the judgment of the second instance which admitted the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, the author does not share the view of the Judgment. The author believes that considering the trend of alleviating the formality requirement of arbitration agreements under Article 2 of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court could have concluded that there was a written arbitration agreement because the defendant participated in thearbitration proceedings in Vietnam without disputing the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement. Or the Supreme Court should have taken the view that the defendant was no longer permitted to dispute the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement because otherwise it would be clearly against the doctrine of estoppel.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.45-65
• /
• 2009

China and Taiwan had opened complete Three Linkages era December 2008, in the 59 years. The improvement of two countries' relationship is expecting to spur two countries more on the economy exchange. However the increasement of investment and trade between two countries will increase disputes to ratio. In order to settle the disputes related to economy between two countries, the most favorite way is to use arbitral system which involve less public power. After China and Taiwan recognized this point, they announced provisions which allow to solve controversies through the arbitration between parties of two countries since 1980, and prepared legal basis for dispute settlement between two countries. However, because China and Taiwan do not authorize each party as a country, the execution application made by each party based on New York Convention related to foreign arbitral awards cannot be approved. Because of these kind of reasons China and Taiwan should agree in order to guarantee mutual execution of arbitral awards which is an ultimate purpose of arbitration. However because of the political situation of two countries there are provisions related to execution for arbitral awards decided by each party. In this paper, I separated the provision related to mutual execution for arbitral awards of each party of China and Taiwan, examined exposed problems, and suggested ways to improve. It can support some of assistance and implication to establish basis of arbitral system between South Korea and North Korea and to suggest direction to derive through this kind of study.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.