• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.21-54
• /
• 2011

International commercial arbitration has established itself as the primary dispute resolution mechanism for international business transactions. Certainly, there are commonly-accepted standards that have evolved to reflect an internationally-harmonized approach to issues relating to the taking of evidence. This is reflected in International Bar Association("IBA") Rules for Taking of Evidence in International Evidence("IBA Rules"). This IBA Rules were revised in 2010. Designed to assist parties in determining what procedures to use in their particular case, IBA Rules present some of the methods for conducting international arbitration proceedings. Parties and arbitral tribunals may adopt IBA Rules in whole or in part - at the time of drafting the arbitration clause in a contract or once an arbitration commences - or they may use them as guidelines. They supplement applicable national laws and institutional or ad hoc rules. The IBA Rules were an ambitious undertaking, designed to overcome fundamental cultural differences relating to the taking of evidence under different national court systems. While it is difficult to assess how frequently the IBA Rules are actually adopted by parties, it is fair to say that they have had a considerable influence on the practice of taking evidence in international arbitration. This article mainly describes the essential provisions of IBA Rules, as revised in 2010, including but not limited to production of document, witnesses of fact, party-appointed experts, and tribunal-appointed experts. It also provides a comparison of relevant procedural rules of civil law and common law systems to each of the above mentioned provisions. It is important for arbitration practitioners to understand the differences in the taking of evidence under civil law and common law systems, respectively. This article will be helpful for practitioners and academics not only to understand the revised IBA Rules themselves but also to prepare for, and adequately deal with, the frictions that may arise as a result of the differences in approach for taking evidences. Indeed, so prepared, the arbitration practitioner will be able to anticipate the expectations, perceptions and the conduct of the parties, their counsel and the tribunal members.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.107-127
• /
• 2021

Vietnam is an important country with many trade transactions with the Republic of Korea. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes that can arise with the increase in trade transactions. It is essential to study the legal system and precedents of Vietnam on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Such is the case because the law in Vietnam and the court's position on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards issued by the courts depend on the possibility of realizing the parties' rights concerning their disputes. Therefore, it is of great value both theoretically and practically to analyze the exact differences between approval and the denial of approval. Vietnam has enacted the Commercial Arbitration Act, which replaces the previous Commercial Arbitration Decree and creates an arbitration-friendly environment that meets international arbitration standards. Regarding the approval and execution of foreign arbitration awards, the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Civil Procedure Act, the Civil Execution Act, and the Vietnam Foreign Arbitration Awards Approval and Enforcement Ordinance are regulated. Following these laws and regulations, the reasons for the approval, enforcement, and rejection of the arbitral award are specified. In accordance with these laws and inappropriate arbitration agreements, an arbitral award beyond the scope of its right of disposition, an arbitral tribunal, or the concerned parties could not be involved in a proceeding or an arbitral award if the involved party does not have an opportunity to exercise its rights lawfully. If the state agency in the forum does not recognize the arbitral award, the dispute is not subject to arbitration under Vietnamese law, or the arbitral award does not conform to the basic principles of Vietnamese law, the parties are not bound, and the foreign arbitration award is rejected for approval and execution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2023

The investment agreement prepared at the beginning of inter-Korean economic cooperation in 2000 can be evaluated as very ineffective as a product of mutual political and diplomatic compromise rather than an effective protection for our investment assets. South Korean companies suffered a lot of losses due to the freezing of assets in the Geumgang mountain district and the closure of the Kaeseung Industrial Complex, but they did not receive practical damage relief due to institutional vulnerabilities. Currently, North Korea is under international economic sanctions of the UN Security Council, so it is true that the resumption of inter-Korean economic cooperation is far away, but North Korea's human resources and geographical location are still attractive investment destinations for us. Therefore, if strained relations between the two Koreas recover in the future and international economic sanctions on North Korea are eased, Korean companies' investment in North Korea will resume. However, the previous inter-Korean investment agreement system was a fictional systemthat was ineffective. Therefore, if these safety devices are not reorganized when economic cooperation resumes, unfair damage to Korean companies will be repeated again. The core of the improved investment guarantee system is not a bilateral system between the two Koreas, but the establishment of a multilateral system through North Korea's inclusion in the international economy. Specifically, it includes encouraging North Korea to join international agreements for the execution of arbitration decisions, securing subrogation rights through membership of international insurance groups such as MIGA, creating matching funds by international financial organizations. Through this new approach, it will be possible to improve the safety of Korean companies' investment in North Korea, and ultimately, it will be necessary to lay the foundation for mutual development through economic cooperation between the two Koreas.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2005

Since the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration was signed by the Governments of South and North Korea last year, there has been quite a few discussions on the way for implementing the Agreement in both public and private sectors. The Department of Justice of South Korea was quite active in making the draft of arbitration rules representing the South Korean views in alliance with the Department of Reunification of South Korea and recently held an informal seminar to preview their draft. On the other hand, the Korea Arbitration Association, a main body of commercial arbitration which are composed of professors and lawyers, were carefully watching the steps and the draft made by the Department of Justice. The reasons are to assure that not only shall the commercial arbitration rules comply with comment norms of international arbitration but shall it be made to meet the needs of enterprises investing in the Special Economic District of Kaesung City in North Korea. The concerns of the Korea Arbitration Association can be accomplished if the Department of Justice would modify the provisions pointed out in the seminars. Five general principles shall be brought into the attention in promulgating the commercial arbitration rules. First, it should comply with the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration signed by South and North Korea. Second, it should accept common rules contained in UNCITRAL arbitration rules. Third, it should boost the promptness of proceedings when a case was filed. Fourth, it should feature unique aspects of trade between South Korea and Korea by differentiating it from purely international trade between a country and a country. Lastly, it should combine the respective rules of both South and North Korea, currently in effect. With the above five principles accomplished, it should be noted that the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration the upper authority of arbitration rules, mandates the following features. It declared that arbitration be processed by three arbitrators. Single arbitrator is not permitted. Arbitration can be adopted even if an arbitration clause does not exist in an agreement by the parties, provided that the dispute arose out of the scope of the Agreement on investment Guarantee signed by South Korea and North Korea. It excluded quick and simplified procedures even if the amount of claim in arbitration is minimal. All the procedures should take a formal procedure. It let the double administration offices operate. One is to sit in Seoul of South Korea and the other is to sit in Pyongyang of North Korea. This would intimidate the fastness of procedures. With the above principles and the features considered, each provision in the draft by the Department of Justice should be reviewed and suggested for change.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.73-106
• /
• 2004

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Working Group began its deliberations on the topic of interim measures of protection at its thirty-second session (Vienna, 21-30 March 2000), when the Working Group expressed general support for a legal regime governing enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by the arbitral tribunal. Also the Working Group took a preliminary analysis of whether there was a need for a uniform rule on court-ordered interim measures of protection in support of arbitration. The Working Group agreed, at its thirty-third session (Vienna, 20 November-1 December 2000), that the proposed new article to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration on enforcement of interim measures of protection (tentatively numbered article 17 bis) should include an obligation on courts to enforce interim measures if prescribed conditions were met. At its thirty-fourth session (New York, 21 May-1 Jun 2001), in addition to continuing its review of draft article 17 bis, the Working Group proceeded to consider a text revising article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which defined the scope of an arbitral tribunal's power to order interim measures and included an additional provision on the granting of interim measures on an ex parte basis. Discussions in relation to revised drafts of article 17 and 17 bis of the UNCITRAL Model Law have continued at the fortieth session ( New York, 23-27 February 2004). Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect to the subject matter of the dispute. However it may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the Warsaw system, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. Korea has made the national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act on April 29, 2011, and it has brought into force on November 24, 2011. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act of Korea has the provisions on the liability for damage caused to passenger, the liability for damage caused to baggage, and the liability for damage caused to cargo. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Act of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier by the Korean government will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier' liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air, and to provide proper compensation to the passenger or consignor who has suffered damage, subject to the defenses and limitations it sets out.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2019

This study is aimed at drawing up improvement measures in connection with the resolution of claims, one of the major constraints in revitalizing South-North Korean economic cooperation. To that end, we first looked at the structure of South-North Korean economic cooperation and the institutional status related to resolving the claims. Also we analyzed the current status of the claims in the process of promoting South-North Korean economic cooperation by companies and the provisions of the claims between the parties in order to derive any problems. Through these research results, we were able to identify directions and implications for efficient improvement of the causes of several South-North Korean economic cooperation claims. First, at the corporate level, there is a need to create specific details of a contract for resolving disputes and to add additional third-party coordination functions in the relevant clause of the contract in preparation for the occurrence of a dispute. In addition, it is necessary to seek ways to advance jointly with corporations in China and other third countries in order to secure stability. Second, the government should continue to discuss ways of promoting South-North Korean commercial arbitration with North Korea so that follow-up measures can be completed as soon as possible. In addition, a two-track strategy is suggested to provide a practical negotiation channel at the private level. Also it is necessary to be active in persuading North Korea to join the international arbitration treaty in preparation for the activation of full-fledged economic exchanges.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.125-167
• /
• 2003

ADR program is designed to solve the problem such as the increase of suits and decision delayed. ADR program has the several significances, decreasing inappropriate cost as time and burden of courts, providing an approachable measure of relief and more efficient tool for settlement of dispute. Particularly ADR program satisfies the needs Intellectual property disputes need specialists that are versed in the subjected problem and, need to be souled quickly in confidence. And parties concerned are not good at the strict judicial procedure in courts, At this point, ADR program holds some advantages over court proceeding for intellectual property disputes. Specialists can be selected as arbitrators or mediator; Cofidentiality may be preserved; Flexibility allows settlement based on mutual commercial interests; Single solution is possible for multiple disputes involving parties from different countries. However, ADR program has not been properly used in. Korea, which is due to not only the lack of understanding the ADR program, but the poor number of filings and settlements. Intermediaries are not professional and also they do not take active hands in disputes. Sometimes, their fairness is asked as peacemakers. Eventually, it is said that this program is not enough to settle international disputes. To activate the ADR program, we can propose the ADR program annexed to court for example. And we can introduce the conciliation and arbitration to disputes in intellectual property. Traditionally arbitration has been a crucial issue in intellectual property disputes. In that intellectual property rights are granted by the local sovereign power, many legal systems in the past maintained the position that the existence, extent, meaning and application of such rights could only be definitively decided by the granting authority or the courts of that country. There is wide recognition that the arbitration of intellectual property is desirable. The law in most of the major countries has been changed in recent years in favor of arbitrability of intellectual property rights. We can also propose ADR on-line.