• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2015

There are three categories of arbitration - domestic arbitration, foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitration. Although the meaning of foreign arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration is different, they are used to mean the same in practice. In fact, there is significant controversy about the meaning of non-domestic arbitration because it is too difficult to distinguish between non-domestic arbitration and domestic arbitration. In the Chinese arbitration system, there are two main laws,Chinese Arbitration Law and Chinese Civil Procedure Law. Chinese Arbitration Law regulates the internal matters, while Chinese Civil Procedure Law regulates the external legal regulations. After the 2012 revised Chinese Civil Procedure Law, a number of laws and regulations have been revised, and almost every Arbitrations Rules have been revised, and will be in effect in 2015. Depending on the nationality of arbitration, the applicable laws will be different. The nationality of arbitration is so important that this paper will pay more attention to it. Although the case in China has no precedent effect, it is so important to the parties that this paper will address it. This paper will analyze the process and the cases of the recognition and enforcement of the award system in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.133-167
• /
• 2010

The enforcement of commercial arbitration awards in the People's Republic of China is one the controversial obstacles faced by foreign investors in China. The foreign investor will fail to enforce the arbitration award, if the Chinese court refuses the enforcement in China, even if the arbitration tribunal rules the award in favor of foreign investor who is in dispute with Chinese partners. In Korea, we have not many researches in the enforcement of foreign related awards and awards ruled by other jurisdiction. In recent times, Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) and Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) reports the details of the enforcement statistics of CIETAC during 1990s. Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the obstacles of the enforcement of foreign related awards in China. This paper extends their researches in the field of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. First, this paper extends Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005)'s study by introducing the Chinese enforcement situation during the period of 2000-2007. Second, this paper extends Professor Sunjung Kim(2008) emphasizes the local protectionism and the weakness of judiciary as key factors of obstacles to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. This paper, additionally, highlights the role of the Guanxi and the antagonism of court toward arbitration institution to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. Third, this study provides the recent developments of Supreme People's Court(SPC)'s rules to narrow down the gap between the practices of international arbitration and those of People's Republic of China. The Implications of this study are as follows. First, it is desirable for foreign investors to appoint the CIETAC or BAC as the arbitration commission in China. Second, the local competent attorney is the best choice to solve the respondent's insolvency in China. Third, foreign investors is required to monitor the provisions on the electronic instruments such as EDI and Email in Chinese law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2021

Chinese courts seem to be indifferent or ignorant of truncated arbitration. In other words, the Chinese court canceled the arbitration award made by truncated arbitration except for the Pingdingsan Case among the four arbitration cases related to the domestic arbitration award reviewed in this paper on the ground that it violated the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure. A Chinese court has canceled the arbitration award by judging only based on the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the legal process of the violation of the arbitration procedure not by determining whether the domestic arbitration award made by the truncated arbitration meets the conditions for the application of truncated arbitration as stipulated in the Arbitration Rules. Moreover, it seems that the Chinese court made a serious error in the application of the relevant regulations in the Pingdingsan Case, which ruled that the truncated arbitration did not violate the legal process. In this case, the Chinese court admitted truncated arbitration under logic process that it was not necessary to wait until the final hearing to apply the truncated arbitraion because one arbitrator was absent before the final hearing, but the truncated arbitrator had already formed his/her opinion before the absence. However, in the case of Marshall Investment Corporation, a case related to foreign arbitration, the Chinese court rejected the approval and execution of the truncated arbitration award by strictly applying the laws and timing of the truncated arbitration. Since only one case has been identified in the main text, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment, but considering these cases, it seems to be that the Chinese courts apply different standards to domestic and foreign arbitration awards to determine the legality of truncated arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.213-244
• /
• 2004

This article studied on international trade dispute of enforcement procedure of foreign arbitral awards at Korean Supreme Court, which is especially related to New York Convention article 5, The key points of most enforcement procedure were about public policy according New York Convention article 5, 2, b and New York Convention article 5, 1. Particularly, Judgement of public policy from Supreme Court represented that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award is to present and protect basic moral conviction and social order from spoiling, and not only domestic situation but also international stability of transaction should be taken into consideration in judging on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, which is construed under certain limitation. In this point, you should be understand the concept on refusal reasons in enforcing of foreign arbitral awards

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.109-131
• /
• 2010

Investment Agreement is to be a part of FTA, as negotiating together both trade and investment. For example, it has a separate chapter about investment in KORUS FTA contract and is more detailed and inclusive than BIT contents which are traditional investment provisions. It is called to the investment norm of FT A. The investment agreement lures a foreign investment by providing the environment which is stable to the foreign investors. Hence, it plans in goal for the economic development of the home country. In international investment, the arbitration award cases are coming out to be divided into two parts applying MFN provisions in investor protective principles and dispute resolution process; the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. In the case of RosInvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation awarded in 2007, the arbitration tribunal interprets that the application scope of MFN provisions contain the more lucrative dispute provision than other BITs without limitations in entity right of the investor. This judgment is the same view as arbitration tribunal position of Maffezini case. The arbitration tribunal of Plama case has kept out an assertion magnifying the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction. That is, for applying more inclusive investor-nation resolution method from different treaty, tribunal mentioned that MFN provision had to see clearly a point of applying the investor-nation dispute resolution method. Dispute resolution process providing inclusive MFN provision has both the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. It needs ceaselessly to do the monitoring about cases of arbitration award. In conclusion, the point where MFN provisions are applied conclusively is recognized, but it is still controversial whether or not to magnify the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal applying MFN provisions. Therefore, it does not exist clear principle in the theory or in the award eases about the application scope for entity protection provision of MFN. Hence, The Korean government of Korea and local autonomous entities needs to keep their eyes on the trend of the international arbitration award cases in relation to the investment dispute for the future. Also, Korean government or local self-governing group must consider MFN provisions when they make a contract of international investment treaty such as writing concretely the application of MFN provisions from KORUS FTA.

• 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
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2021

England is a significant base for international trade in Europe, and dispute resolution through arbitration is active. Therefore, due to the geographical relationship with the European continent, the settlement of trade transactions and disputes with European countries is one of the most essential tasks. In this regard, arbitration procedures in England have been actively used for a long time. In England, dispute resolution methods through arbitration have been developed centered on merchant groups such as guilds from the 16th century and have been actively used until today. However, the arbitration procedure also had the characteristics of the common law because there was no legislation related to arbitration. Therefore, arbitration based on common law was carried out until the first half of the 19th century. In the 'Arbitration Act 1889', two types of arbitration systems, 'common law arbitration' and 'statutory arbitration' coexisted. However, in the arbitration procedure, according to the newly enacted 'Arbitration Act 1889', the arbitration agreement was binding from the time the arbitration agreement was reached. There was a way to select an arbitrator even if it was not explicitly stipulated in the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration award was quickly enforced. Arbitration under contract was preferred over common law arbitration, where withdrawal and revocation of awards were possible. However, in response to these provisions, the England courts considered the arbitration system to deprive the courts of jurisdiction, while a strengthened judicial review of arbitration procedures was done. In particular, England unified the arbitration-related laws, which had been scattered for a long time, adopted the model law, and enacted the 'Arbitration Act 1996'. Under the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 'Arbitration Act 1996', Section 66 deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards. Section 2 of the 'Arbitration Act 1950' is inherited and used as it is. Second, it deals with the execution of arbitral awards under the New York Convention: Article 100 (New York Convention), Section 101 (Approval and Enforcement of Awards), Section 102 (Evidence Presented by a Party Seeking Recognition and Enforcement), and Section 103 (Provides Matters Concerning Rejection Recognition and Enforcement).