• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.273-314
• /
• 2004

There is a belief in the construction industry that the traditional court system may not be an ideal forum to effectively and efficiently resolve construction disputes due to the protracted proceedings and the three tier appeal system resulting in a long delay in the final and conclusive settlement of the dispute, relatively high costs involved, the lack of requisite knowledge and experience in the relevant industry, etc. Hence, they assert that certain alternative dispute resolution ('ADR') methods, such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration or a new system for dispute settlement in the form of any combination thereof should be developed and employed for construction disputes so as to resolve them more promptly and efficiently to the satisfaction of all the disputants concerned. This paper discusses certain merits of such assertions and the need for additional considerations for effective resolution of the construction disputes in light of the complexity of the case, importance of expert witnesses, parties' relationship and non-level playing field of the construction industry and so on. At the same time, however, given the inherent nature of disputes rendering the parties involved in an adversarial position, it would rather be difficult, if not practically impossible, to satisfy all the parties concerned in the dispute. Accordingly, in this study, it is also purported to address the demerits of such assertions by studying the situation from a more balanced perspective, in particular, in relation to the operation of such ADRs. In fact, most of such ADRs as stipulated by special acts, such as the Construction Industry Basic Act of Korea, in the form of mediation or conciliation, have failed to get support from the industry, and as a result, such ADRs are seldom used in practice. Tn contrast, the court system has been greatly improved by implementing a new concentrated review system and establishing several tribunals designed to specialize in the review and resolution of specific types of disputes, including the construction disputes. These improvements of the court system have been warmly received by the industry. Arbitration is another forum for settlement of construction disputes, which has grown and is expected to grow as the most effective ADR with the support from the construction industry. In this regard, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board ('KCAB') has established a set of internal rules end procedures in operation to efficiently handle construction disputes. Considering the foregoing, this paper addresses the most important elements of the arbitration, i.e., arbitration agreement and arbitral award, primarily focusing on the domestic arbitrations before the KCAB. However, since this parer is prepared for presentation at the construction disputes seminar for the public audience, it is not intended for academic purposes, nor does it delve into any specific acadcmic issues. Likewise, although this paper addresses certain controversial issues by way of introduction, it mainly purports to facilitate the understanding of the general public, including the prospective arbitrators on the KCAB roster without the relevant legal education and background, concerning the importance of the integrity of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award. In sum, what is purported in this study is simply to note that there are still many outstanding issues with mediation, conciliation and arbitration, as a matter of system, institutional operation or otherwise, for further study and consideration so as to enhance them as effective means for settlement of construction disputes, in replacement of or in conjunction with the court proceeding. For this purpose, it is essential for all the relevant parties, including lawyers, engineers, owners, contractors and social activists aiming to protect consumers' and subcontractors' interests, to conduct joint efforts to study the complicated nature of construction works and to develop effective means for examination and handling of the disputes of a technical nature, including the accumulation of the relevant industrial data. Based on the foregoing, the parties may be in a better position to select the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism, a court proceeding or in its stead, an effective ADR, considering the relevant factors of the subject construction works or the contract structure, such as the bargaining position of the parties, their financial status, confidentiality requirements, technical or commercial complexity of the case at hand, urgency for settlements, etc.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.81-106
• /
• 2006

The Terms of Reference are one of the most distictive features of ICC Arbitration. No document of this type is required to be drawn up under the rules of any of the other major international arbitration institutions. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in Article 18 of ICC Rules of Arbitration, which results in the wide recognition of the Terms of Reference. As the volume of our international commercial transaction ranks almost ten in the world, the frequency using ICC Arbitration is expected to increase continuously. The Terms of Reference provide the parties and the arbitrators with an opportunity to identify and agree on procedural and other matters, such as the applicable law, the language of the arbitration and the timetable for the arbitration. They also afford the parties and the arbitrators to identify the substantive issues that are addressed in the arbitration and to delimit the precise scope of the Arbitract Tribunal's mandate. The contents of the Terms of Reference which are provided in Article 18(1) include the summary of parties claims, the list of issues and procedural rules. For the effects of the Terms of Reference, they are not intended to replace the parties' arbitration agreement. But they may in certain circumstances be regarded as a form of submission agreement. Article 18(2) provides that the Terms of Reference shall be signed by the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal, and requires the Arbitral Tribunal to transmit a signed copy of the Terms of Reference to the Court within two months of the date on which the file was transmitted to it by the Secretariat. The Court enjoys the power to extend the two-month time limit for the Terms of Reference on the reasoned request of the Arbitral Tribunal or on the Court's own initiative. Article 18(3) provides that if any of the parties refuses to take part in the drawing up of the Terms of Reference or to sign the same, they shall be submitted to the Court for approval. Article 18(4) allows the Arbitral Tribunal to extablish in a separate document a provisional timetable. This is a provision that encourages the acceleration of the arbitraction process. The timetable provided for therein is merely "provisional" and may be modified, as necessary, during the course of the arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2018

As the disputes in the investment and civil/commercial sectors of China and Taiwan have increased due to active cross-strait economic exchanges, the Chinese government is addressing cross-strait disputes through various dispute resolution methods. In recent years, the Arbitration Center Across the Straits (ACAS) has been established to resolve disputes between cross-strait parties, while ACAS Arbitration Rules have been enacted and enforced. ACAS Arbitration Rules are prepared by referring to the Arbitration Act of China and Taiwan, the relevant provisions and practices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules and the cross-strait practical affairs of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, and the cross-strait practical affairs giving consideration to the specificity of the cross-strait relationship and the characteristics of economic and trade disputes. Therefore, this paper has compared the features and main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules with those of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. This refers to arbitration proceedings such as form and effect of arbitration agreement, decision of place of arbitration, and organization of arbitral tribunal; the provision of consolidation of multiple contracts and arbitration, and the provision of joinder of arbitration parties, which are implementing the "principle of party autonomy" with streamlining arbitration proceedings and reducing costs; "common, simple, and small sum arbitration proceedings which require shorter arbitration proceedings depending on the size of the arbitration object; and regulations on the "interconnection of mediation and conciliation" which is characteristic of China's arbitration system. Based on the above-mentioned main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules in China, there are some implications to be considered in the establishment of the Arbitration Rules of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission which will be applied to solve commercial and investment disputes arising from the Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation process, suggesting implications such as the need for the rapid composition and operation of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission, requirements for selecting arbitrators, expansion of the object of arbitration, specification of concreteness in deciding the place of arbitration, need to create a variety of arbitration proceedings, and application plan of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) or Third Power Arbitration Agency.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.141-165
• /
• 2007

This study aims to make a contribution to the promotion of trade and economic development of South Korea, and, at the same time, call attention to the increasing trend of investment agreements concluded within Free Trade Agreements (FTA) by examining theoretically FTAs and dispute resolution and investigating systematically the conclusion procedure of agreements, and the system, institutions, and jurisdiction of dispute resolution, and presenting these findings to the government and investors involved. The most problematic aspect in the legal process of arbitration involving disputes over investment is that of arguments concerning the right of jurisdiction. When a dispute arises, even though an investor files for arbitration at an ICSID institution, the parties become involved in another energy-consuming argument even before proceeding to the hearing and decision of the original plan in cases in which the respondent of the dispute files an objection to the decision rights of the arbitral tribunal. As the main basis for this type of plea, the point of non-existence of jurisdiction is first raised where the applicable dispute does not fall under the range of investments defined in individual investment contracts or investment agreements such as a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). To avoid an open-ended definition of investment for the range of investments, articles concerning investments in the FTA and NAFTA between Canada and the USA adopt the limited closed-list method. Article 96 of the FTA between Japan and Mexico applied the same abovementioned method of limited form of definition regarding range of investments and concluded BITs between member countries of APEC applied a similar method as well. Instead of employing the previously used inclusive definition, the BITs concluded between countries of Latin America and the USA are equipped with limited characteristics of an investment. Furthermore, to correspond with this necessary condition the three following requirements are needed : 1) fixed investment funding; 2) expected profits resulting from such investments; 3) and the existence of fixed risk bearing.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.89-114
• /
• 2011

Environmental disputes not only possess the special characteristics of collectivity and plural value relativity but it also possesses the unique features of difficulty to prove cause and effect as well as the structural maldistribution of evidence and information. Therefore, the positive resolution of an environmental dispute can be brought about more easily with the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which can take the form of talks, compromises, as well as arbitration or mediation rather than through a trial process. Such being the case, this paper first looks into the problems and effectiveness of the arbitration system of environmental lawsuits and then takes an even closer look at Korea's environmental dispute arbitration system and finally offer some reform methods. In Korea, the environmental dispute arbitration system was implemented in 1991 and has been executed since then. Although this system does have positive features such as the high rate of coming to an agreement between the involved parties but unfortunately, most of the cases rely on decisions based on right and wrong which cannot but be far away from the intentions of the ADR system. It is heavily centered around claims regarding psychological compensation regarding noise and vibrations and the ratio of the actual amount of compensation is comparatively lower than the requested amount. In addition, with the limits in organization and manpower, it leads to a lack of professionalism as well as the problem of low usage with the low awareness rate. As reform measures against the aforementioned problems, this paper suggests the following. First, in order to activate the arbitration process more fully, it proposes aggressive usage of compulsory arbitration as well as submission to arbitration, while at the same time raising ADR professionals to fill in the missing gaps. Secondly, in order to overcome the problem of concentration of related cases, making representative lawsuits of environmental organizations would be a good idea. It also states that in order to make the compensation amount more realistic, it should go out of the across-the-board decision making process and reach a decision about the compensation amount that takes the individual situation's dispute into consideration. In order to boost the professionalism of the environmental dispute arbitration, it is necessary to reform the organization and manpower such as expanding the number of members of full standing, and increasing the professionalism of the examiners. Also, to increase the usage rate of the ADR system, the paper suggests stationing a civilian consultant regarding environment, or activating the compulsory arbitration which is the premise for public participation on the part of the residents.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.233-266
• /
• 2005

The world trading system has been under many changes in recent years. One notably important development is that much attention away from the multilateralism-oriented World Trade Organization towards FTA(Free Trade Agreement). The Free Trade Agreement signed between korea and chile formally have been come effective for free trade in goods and services as from April 1, 2004. During Free Trade Agreement negotiations between both countries. This study aims at presenting the suggestion for the Korea to make the WTO rules and FTA by analyzing The interpretation of FTA under WTO System. It was founded by the investigation of WTO rules, most of the provisions are similar with other FTA, but a little provisions different from other FTA's. It is an appearance from the contracting party's peculiar circumstances such as state of industrial development or future prospect, conditions around international trade. The whole world has entered the new stage of bilateral and multilateral FTA. The essential or new generation or bilateral and multilateral FTA is creating more trade opportunities, promoting all factors, commodity, service, capital, technology and talent freely flow through canceling the trade barriers between FTA, in order to develop together within the regions. It shows that the cooperations transfer form the whole region into FTA. FTA makes not only the free trade smooth ,but also takes place the trade distortion effect. especially as the agriculture has a speciality each country, should it is ignored in negotiation, many reactions will be occurred in the process of fta Therefore Korea needs to deliver the message that Korea's hub is an essential ingredient for an efficient FTA and WTO system in a bilateral and multilateral win-win framework. Consequently Korea should have criterions about the rules of FTA and WTO system for peculiar circumstances of Korean economy and international trade.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.11
• /
• pp.129-157
• /
• 2006

With rapid social change, by culminating the social hazards and the safety problems about it are on the increase too. According to the needs for the safety the demand of the private guard & security provided the safety and security service against danger is also increasing. As the need for the safety is increasing, so recently the private guard & security industry is extended. Therefore the purpose of this study is to grasp and carry out researches into the legal structure on the Security contract, is to analyze the formation of contract and find out the ensuing problem in order to prevent or settle the dispute which is apt to occur between the specific client and the security companies. In order to minimize the dispute going with security relationship in particular, it is necessary that one should write down the agreed contents as the document explicitly to make a security contract with the parties. Hereupon in the plan which standardizes the security contract with each parties autonomously, it is suggested that this study should present the model of Dispute Resolution Clause Especially it is the best means that it is amicable consultation or negotiation as the effective way of settlement methods of private dispute arising from the concerned parties. In inevitable case it recommends the method which solves the dispute by means of an arbitration than litigation at administration of justice(in terms of jurisdiction). If the parties wish to settle the disputes by arbitration, they must come to an arbitration agreement in the form of a arbitration clause in the security contract. After the test and evaluation through application utilizing it in actual security field, the security standard contract regulates about it and this terms should widely apply a individual case to whole industry.