• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.271-321
• /
• 2002

Every year, many million of business transactions take place. Ocassionally, disagreements develop over these business transactions. Many of these disputes are resolved by mediation, arbitration and out-of-court settlement options. The American Arbitration Association(AAA) helps resolve a wide range of disputes through mediation, arbitration, elections and other out-of-court settlement procedures. The AAA offers a broad range of dispute resolution services to business executives, attorneys, individuals, trade associations, unions, management, consumers, families, communities, and all level of governments. The 198,491 cases composed of the 194,303 arbitration cases and the 4,188 mediation cases, were filed with the AAA in 2000. These case filings represent a full range of matters, including commercial finance, construction, labor and employment, environmental, health care, insurance, real state, securities, and technology disputes. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) does more than render arbitration services. It helps facilitate settlements and guarantee implementation thereof between trading partners at home and abroad involving disputes related to such areas as the sale of commodities, construction, joint venture agreements, technical assistance, agency agreements, and maritime transport. The 643 cases composed of the the 197 arbitration cases and the 446 mediation cases, were filed with the KCAB in 2001. There are some differences between the AAA and the KCAB regarding the number and the area of mediation and arbitration case filings, the breath of service offerings, the scope of alternative dispute resolution, and the education and training. In order to apply to the proceedings of the commercial mediation and arbitration, the AAA has the Commercial Mediation Rules, the Commercial Arbitration Rules, the Expedited Procedures, the Optional Procedures for Large, Complex Commerical Dispute, and the Optional Rules for Emergency Measures of Protection as amended and effective on September 1, 2000. In order to apply to the proceedings of commercial arbitration, the KCAB has the Arbitration Rules as amended by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2000, which have been changed to incorporate the revisions of the Arbitration Act that went into effect on December 31, 1999. There are some differences between the AAA's commercial Arbitration Rules and the KCAB's Arbitration Rules regarding the clauses of jurisdiction and administrative conference, number of arbitrators, communication with arbitrator, vacancies, preliminary hearing, exchange of information, oaths, evidence by affidavit and posthearing filing of documents or others, interim measures, serving of notice, form of award, scope of award, delivery of award to parties, modification of award, release of liability, administrative fees, neutral arbitrator's compensation, and expedited procedures. In conclusion, for the vitalization of KCAB and its ADR system, the following measures should be taken : the effective case management, the development of on0-line ADR, the establishment of ADR system of electronic commerce disputes, and the variety of dispute resolution rules in each expert field.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• 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.