• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2014

In contracts for the international sale of goods, a seller must deliver appropriate goods and hand over relevant documents according to a contract, which will transfer the ownership of the goods to a buyer. In this case, if there are defects in the contracted goods, the warranty liability will occur. However, in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), a term-the conformity of the goods to the contract-is used universally instead of the warranty. According to the CISG, a seller must deliver goods in conformance with the relevant contract in terms of quantity, quality, and specifications, and they must be contained in vessels or in packages according to the specifications in the contract. In addition, a certain set of requirements for conformity will be applied implicitly except when there is a separate agreement between parties. Further, the base period of conformity concerning the defects of goods is the point when the risk is transferred to the buyer. A seller shall be obliged to deliver goods that do not belong to a third party or subject to a claim then, and such obligations shall affect the right or claim of a third party to some extent based on intellectual property rights clauses. If the goods delivered by the seller lack conformity, or incur right infringement or claim of a third party, then it shall be regarded as a default item per the obligation of the seller. Thus, the buyer can exercise diverse means of relief as specified in Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 45-Article 52) of the CISG. However, such means of relief have been utilized in various ways for individual cases as shown in judicial precedents made until now. Contracting parties shall thus keep in mind that it is best for them to make every contract airtight and they should implement each contract thoroughly and faithfully to cope with any possible occurrence of a commercial dispute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2008

Northeast Asia is increasingly making a transition to distinctive and crucial region in the 21st Century and growing into one of world's top three economic spheres along with the EU and NAFTA. In 2003, Korean government announced the Northeast Asian economic hub country plan as an important agenda. As a means of coping with the changing global environment, Korean government designated Incheon in 2003 as the country's first Free Economic Zone ahead of Busan and Gwangyang Bay in the south of the country because Incheon has a geographical advantage linking North America and Europe with Incheon International Airport and Incheon Seaport. The purpose of this paper is to make research on establishment and operation of an arbitral body entitled ${\ulcorner}International Arbitration Center{\lrcorner}$ (IAC) within Incheon Free Economic Zone(IFEZ). For the purpose of this, the writer in this paper, reviewed the necessity of the IAC's establishment and its legal basis as well as the role and function of the Center. Also, the writer presented plans for how to operate the IAC and how to cooperate with the key arbitral organizations of foreign countries for the settlement promotion of commercial disputes including trade and investment. With development of the IFEZ, world-renowned enterprises will invest in the Incheon economic bloc and conduct economic activities, business operation, marketing, logistics, financing, etc. In this connection, diverse types of commercial disputes are expected to occur between foreign companies entering the IFEZ and Korean firms. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) has been operating its liaison office in the IFEZ since 2004. However, in view of the increasing arbitration demand, the IAC should be set up in the IFEZ in the near future by the positive support of the government in the respect of both administration and finance because the free economic zone-related law provides for the installation of arbitration organization. For the success of the IAC, the Center will have to provide not only good quality of arbitral services that can satisfy arbitration parties but also need to conduct researches and make efforts so that arbitration can be utilized well in the IFEZ. If the IFEZ can provide advantageous business environments to those multinational enterprises intending to the Incheon economic bloc, the IAC will also contribute to the settlement of commercial disputes arising from the Gaeseong Industrial Complex in North Korea in view of the geographical advantage and logistic benefit of the IFEZ. Finally, this paper also suggests a new model for a joint dispute resolution system by the initiative of Korean government and Korean arbitral organizations for the settlement of commercial disputes within Northeast Asia, for which the CAMCA(Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas) of NAFTA can be a good example.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.23 no.6
• /
• pp.14-32
• /
• 2019

Purpose - This study is designed to provide new insights on trade claim management by typifying trade claims from a relational perspective, which defines trade as an organic combination that exchanges relationships based on a mutual goal instead of conflicts between obligations and rights of the contracting parties. Design/methodology - This is a phenomenological study that aims to typify trade claims based on a relational perspective and extract implications for trade claim management. The research procedures of this study are as follows. First, international commercial dispute cases applying the CISG are collected. Second, the cases collected are quantified through content analysis. The variables for quantification are developed based on a relationship perspective. Third, cluster analysis is conducted on coded data to typify cases. And finally, this study compares the characteristics of each type using analysis of variance and suggests implications for the strategic management of trade claims from a relational perspective. Findings - Results show that trade claims are divided into four clusters, depending on whether flexibility is accepted or not and which party violates mutuality. There is also a difference between the claimant and the cause of the claim, according to the cluster. Based on the results, this study suggests that the buyer and the seller should employ different strategies depending on the type of trade claim and presents proposals for strategic claim management. Originality/value - Firstly, this study extends the theoretical discussion on trade claims by applying relational contract theory. Prior studies on trade claims have been primarily based on traditional contract theory. The second is to analyze trade claims quantitatively. Prior case studies on trade claims have mainly relied on qualitative research. Finally, the study contributes to international commercial practice by typifying trade claims and presenting options for strategic management.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.97-144
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to review the text of national legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air in major states such as United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China, and to compare the air carrier's liability under the national legislations of above states with them under the Warsaw System relating to the international carriage by air. Also this paper reviews the text of the draft legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage 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. A the Convention, or certain of its principles, with the object of regulating their national air transport. 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 principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention have been adopted into national legislations by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China. Now the Ministry of Justice of Korea is proceeding to make a new national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in respect of the carriage by air. The draft legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code 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 in Korea will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air.

• Korean Journal of Remote Sensing
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.241-250
• /
• 2019

The current U.S. remote sensing act was made in 1992 and has been criticized for being outdated and inappropriate in view of the modern technological development. In order to enhance the American competitiveness and leadership in the world, President Trump announced Space Policy Directive (SPD) - 2 on May 24, which is designed to modernize the regulations related to commercial space activities including private remote sensing system operations. It should be noted that the regulatory reform efforts are made within broader terms of the National Security Strategy on Dec. 17, 2017, pursuing the enhancement of national security and economic prosperity as well. A legislative support in Congress has also been added to the Administration's efforts. The proposed regulatory reform on the licensing of commercial remote sensing system operations outlines the features of lessening administrative burden on applicants by simplifying the overall application process and of limiting the operations only when there is an impact upon the national security with clear and convincing evidence. But, due to a different regulatory system of each country, such a movement to expand an individual's freedom to explore and utilize outer space may result in an international dispute or a violation of international obligations, so there should be a merit in paying attention to the U.S. commercial remote sensing regulatory reform, and it is desirable to establish international norms as flexible and appropriate to the level of space technology and space industry.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) 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. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how governments determine interim measures based on relevant case studies. In most countries, the arbitral tribunal will recognize the interim measures, but china still recognizes the court's own authority. This is inconsistent with international trend. Although the Arbitration Act and the Civil Procedure Act were amended in 2017, but there is no consistency between these laws and arbitration rules for interim measures. Therefore, this paper analyzes the attitude of the Chinese government to interim measures and suggests practical implications for international arbitration dispute resolutions. Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of temporary measures and timely use in China can play an important role in protecting the rights of Korean companies in commercial arbitration.