• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.155-187
• /
• 2017

WTO에서는 GATT체제에서 나타났던 분쟁해결에 따른 문제점을 해결하기 위해 복잡한 절차를 분쟁해결양해(DSU)로 통일하였으며, 분쟁해결을 담당하는 상설기관으로 DSB와 상소기관(the Appellate Body)을 설치하였다. 또한 패널보고서의 신속한 의사결정을 위해 역총의제(reverse consensus system)를 도입하고, 사법적 기능을 크게 강화하는 등 절차에서 많은 개선이 이루어졌다. 그러나 미국은 아직도 자국법인 통상법 제301조를 통하여 일방적으로 분쟁해결을 시도하고 있다. 이와 같은 301조에 의한 일방적 보복조치는 공정한 분쟁해결을 저해하는 WTO협정위반에 해당한다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 DSU의 특성과 최근 동향을 검토하고, WTO에서 합법적으로 인정하고 있는 대항조치와 미국의 일방적 보복조치를 비교하였다. 또한 일방적 보복조치에 따른 대표적인 US-Japan Automobiles (DS6) 사건과 EC-Bananas III (DS27) 사건을 법제적으로 분석하였다. 결과적으로 이러한 사건들은 WTO의 정합성(WTO-consistency)에 맞지 않는 것으로 미국의 일방적 보복조치가 국제적으로 인정되기 어렵다는 점을 시사점으로 제시하였다.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 2018

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel's unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan's fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2010

In the past, ADR has not been used as frequently in Japan as it has in other parts of the industrialized world. However, though litigation is still the most utilized vehicle of dispute resolution by Japanese financial institutions, this will be changing. The New Financial ADR system, which was created by a June 2009 amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, is meant to deal with every stage of financial-related disputes and, as such, strives to resolve disputes before they become significant and acts to ameliorate any post-ADR issues that may remain, thereby completing the FIEA's purpose to protect investors. Since the foundation of the New Financial ADR system applies to all related industries, new provisions were set out in 16 business related acts, such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, and FIEA itself. October 2010 will mark the formal introduction of a new system of financial ADR in Japan. New Financial ADR in Japan will be modeled on the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom, but will not feature one comprehensive dispute resolution system in which one dispute resolution institution covers all disputes in the financial field. The New Financial ADR system is merely one step towards a foundation of comprehensive financial ADR such as FOS. It must be noted, however, that this all important first step was over seven years in the making, involving a great deal of discussion, debate, and compromise amongst many parts of Japanese government, business, and society. The New Financial ADR system grants participating parties the ability to stop the clock on any statute of limitations which may correspond to any future possible court cases related to the dispute,13 and further grants the ability to suspend related court proceedings while the parties are utilizing the New Financial ADR system. In addition, where financial institutions have not accepted dispute resolution proceedings or have not accepted a special conciliation proposal, the Ministry of Finance may issue an order compelling compliance if it is found that certain actions are necessary to ensure the appropriate operations of a financial institution's business. In Japan, as best practices have not yet been created.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제9권5호
• /
• pp.103-110
• /
• 2009

건설사업계약은 매우 다양한 계약으로 구성되어 있다. 그리고 이는 일의 완성을 필요로 하는 도급계약의 일종이다. 따라서 당사자들은 계약의 이행과정중에 항상 많은 분쟁에 봉착하게 된다. 실제로 발주자의 지시에 의한 설계변경으로 인해 많은 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 계약의 해석이 수반되어야 하지만, 우리나라에서는 종국적으로 분쟁을 해결하게 하는 분쟁해결절차가 중재와 소송에 국한되어 있으므로 계약당사자들이 비효율성으로 인해 이를 꺼리게 되는 실정이다. 따라서 우리나라에서는 계약의 해석을 찾아보기는 쉽지 않은 반면, 미국의 경우 발주자별로 분쟁해결절차를 둠으로써 다양한 계약의 해석유형을 찾아볼 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 과업의 범위를 초과하는 변경, 수량의 변경, 이행기간의 변경, 이행방법과 태도의 변경, 정부제공물품이나 인도장소의 변경, 시공자의 변경절차 수용, 감액조정에 대한 사항에 대한 해석동향을 분석하여 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.337-372
• /
• 2003

Given the difficulties investors would encounter in pleading and proving their claims in court, they may well be better off in a system where less attention is paid to the law and more to the equities of the actual dispute before the arbitration panel. While this is not a system where accountability and predictability of results can be achieved, investors may fare better than they might expect. It follows then that if equitable considerations enhance rather than subtract from investors' chances of recovery, then investors need not worry about the consequences of the arbitrators' failure to apply the law. This article tracked the evolution of the arbitration process, through amendments to the pertinent securities arbitration codes of procedure, from an informal proceeding into a quasi-judicial one. Subsequently, I examined the practical difficulties arbitrators encounter in their efforts to apply the law. The Court in McMahon assumed arbitrators would apply the law and that the “manifest disregard” standard would provide sufficient judicial oversight to ensure that they did. But there is no meaningful review of arbitration awards to assure arbitrators are applying the law. Arbitration awards have no value as precedent for future arbitrations. Accordingly, there appears to be little reason to write such an award, particularly if the end result is an award immune from challenge no matter how the panel ruled. In these days, securities arbitration as a disputes resolution system is becoming a more popular practice. The trend of the courts in America has been to enforce arbitration agreements. Moreover arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. Therefore I think it would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system Compared to American practices, there could be, of course, many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be an assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.51-75
• /
• 2015

Administrative ADR to solve new problems has the characteristics of a new project, hence ADR is established and operated with a lack of human and material resources in the process of introducing administrative ADR. Therefore, it is preferred to resolve conflicts by less costly counseling and mutual agreement before mediation. When we try to settle the disputes through administrative ADR at the stage before mediation, it causes problems for the neutrality and impartiality of the dispute settlement procedures. In this case administrative ADR systems should introduce devices that ensure the impartiality of the process. In some issues becoming social problems, relevant administrative agencies are inclined to establish ADR systems. If ADR systems become available, a person who may use ADR services may have some trouble grasping ADR institutions because he/she can hardly distinguish their business affairs. By subdividing administrative affairs, when the disputes have the issues that touch on various fields of the affairs, parties in the disputes have to take ADR procedures one by one in all ADR-related institutions. This may lead to too heavy a burden on the disputing parties, furthermore forcing them to give up the remedies of their rights. For more efficient ADR operations, it is necessary that the institutions which set up and operate ADR systems should actively exchange and cooperate with one another. They need to forge and strengthen the solidarity between administrations and courts. The administrative agencies which run ADR themselves have to build up the devices for preparing human resources and material facilities for administrative ADR.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2019

In investigating how set-off defenses matter in arbitration, one should take into account that it is not permitted against the parties' will for arbitrators to rule on the disputes that are not the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties involved, because it is considered that the parties intend to solve only the disputes which are the subject of the agreement by arbitration. Also, one should keep in mind that the parties must settle the disputes that are the subject of an arbitration agreement by arbitration when they conclude the agreement, and it is not allowed against the parties' will to resolve the disputes in other ways. The parties may agree whether the respondent can request for arbitration on the counterclaim, which is his/her claim against the claimant, and whether the respondent can raise a plea for a set-off that his/her claim against the claimant is a counter obligation. Failing on such agreement, the respondent may submit a counterclaim when his/her claim and the claimant's claim are the subject of the same arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal may rule on the counter obligation when the arbitration agreement, which becomes the basis for the claimant' claim, has an effect on the counter obligation. Where the claimant fails to raise an objection even after he/she becomes aware that the respondent has requested for arbitration or has raised a plea for set-off by providing his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement as a counterclaim or a counter obligation, the arbitral tribunal may rule on the respondent's claim against the claimant. On these occasions, the arbitral tribunal has to guarantee the parties an opportunity to defend themselves by pointing out those situations. It will meet the purposes of arbitration systems to rule out the jurisdiction of the courts when the plaintiff alleges the existence of the arbitration agreement, in case the respondent raises a plea for set-off based on his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement in the litigation procedures. However, where the plaintiff fails to allege the existence and conducts pleading in the court with regard to the counter obligation, the court must not reject the respondent's set-off defense because of the existence of the agreement.

• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.9-33
• /
• 2007

치의학계에서는 의료사고를 일으킬만한 중환자나 응급환자의 빈도가 상대적으로 낮아 의료분쟁에 휘말리는 경우가 적었으나 요즈음은 의료분쟁이 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 치과진료의 특성상 항상 보조인력이 한, 두명씩 치과의사의 진료를 도와주어야 하고, 치과의사의 의료사고로 인해 의료분쟁으로 발생하는 경우도 있지만 의료법에서 정한 치과 보조인력의 진료영역에서 의료사고 및 분쟁이 발생할 수 있다. 또한 의료기관의 친절도, 서비스 불만 등 진료외적인 요인은 치과 보조인력의 역할을 무시할 수 없다. 본 연구는 2006년 현재 종합병원, 치과병원 및 의원에서 치과진료 보조업무를 하고 있는 치과위생사를 대상으로 설문조사를 하였다. 회수된 275명의 설문분석을 통하여 응답자에 관한 기본적인 자료조사 및 환자의 불평, 불만 및 의료분쟁 경험도와 함께 의료관계법의 이해도를 측정하고, 치과진료 및 의료분쟁에 대한 전반적인 의식성향을 비교분석하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. 설문응답자 중에서 향후 의료사고 및 분쟁이 발생할지도 모른다는 불안감 또는 의구심을 어느 정도 가지고 있는 경우가 274명 중 251명(91.3%)이었다. 2. 치과위생사의 업무, 진료에 대한 환자의 불평, 불만 경험률은 29.5%(81명)으로 나타나 치과관련 의료분쟁의 원인이 될 수 있는 것으로 조사되었다. 3. 전체유형별 항목에 따른 환자의 문제제기 건수를 보면 직접적인 진료행위와 관련된 문제보다 불친절 및 진료비 등의 진료이외의 문제 제기가 1805건 중 349건(19.3%)으로 가장 높게 나타났다. 4. 세부유형별 항목에 따른 환자의 문제제기 건수를 보면 환자가 치료와 관련하여 충분한 사전설명이나 동의를 구하지 않았다고 문제시 한 경우가 1805건 중 129건(7.1%)으로 가장 높았다. 5. 치과위생사가 스케일링 시술 후 환자 진료기록부에 기록하는 경우는 267명 중 252명(94.4%)으로 나타났으나, 스케일링 시술 후 주의사항 설명 사실을 진료기록부에 기록하는 경우는 55명(20.8%)에 불과했다. 6. 치과진료에 있어서 환자가 언급하지 않으면 특별히 전신질환 유무를 조사하지 않는 경우가 6명(2.2%)으로 조사되었다. 7. 환자 진료와 관련되어 응급상황 발생 시 응급조치를 시행할 수 있다고 생각하는 치과위생사는 104명(38.0%)으로 조사되었다. 8. 근무지에 응급상황 발생 시 조치에 필요한 장비 및 약품을 구비해둔 경우는 115명(41.8%)으로 나타났다. 9. 의료분쟁 발생 시 문제해결에 있어 의무기록이 중요한 역할을 한다고 응답한 경우는 268명(97.81%)으로 나타났다. 10. 의료분쟁 시 문제해결에 있어서 치료 전 설명 및 동의의 의무의 이행 여부가 중요한 역할을 한다고 응답한 경우가 272명 (99.3%)으로 나타났다. 11. 의무기록의 의무보관연도가 10년이라고 옳게 응답한 경우는 160명(58.4%)에 불과했다. 12. 치과위생사의 업무를 벗어난 파노라마사진 촬영을 해도 된다고 응답한 경우가 124명(45.3%), 치경부 레진수복을 해도 된다고 응답한 경우가 71명(25.9%), 유치발치를 해도 된다고 응답한 경우가 37명(13.5%)으로 나타났다. 13. 환자의 비밀누설 금지와 관련하여 환자의 상태를 다른 사람에게 이야기하는 것은 큰 문제가 되지 않는다고 응답한 경우가 24명(8.8%)으로 나타났다. 14. 의료분쟁의 예방 및 대책에 관한 교육의 필요성에 대해서 272명(99.3%)이 필요하고, 167명(61.0%)이 시급하다고 답하였다. 15. 재학 중 의료분쟁의 예방 및 대책에 관한 관련교육을 수료한 적이 없다는 경우가 186명(64.2%), 졸업 후 의료분쟁의 예방 및 대책에 관한 보수교육을 수료한 적이 없는 경우가 212명(77.4%)으로 나타났다. 16. 향후 의료분쟁이 증가할 것으로 생각된다는 응답은 256명(93.4%)이었고, 그 원인으로는 83.3%가 인터넷, 방송 등의 매체를 통한 정보습득 기회의 확대를 꼽았다. 이상의 결과를 종합해보면 치과위생사와 관련한 환자의 불평, 불만 및 분쟁도 경험률이 응답한 치과위생사의 29.5%를 차지하고 있으며, 의료법에서 정한 의료인의 의무와 치과위생사의 직무범위에 대한 인식이 부족한 것으로 조사되어 앞으로 의료분쟁이 더욱 증가할 수 있는 가능성을 내포하고 있다. 그러므로 주의의무, 설명 및 동의의무 등의 의무를 다함은 물론, 이에 대한 인식을 제고하여야 하며, 의료법과 의료분쟁에 대한 예방 및 대책과 관련된 교육기회를 확대하여야 할 것이다.

• 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.