• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.65-97
• /
• 2014

Arbitration is the dispute methods for speedy and economic resolutions in international commercial areas. In maritime disputes cases in East Asia, Korea and Japan are the regional benefits to cover and deal with the maritime cases on arbitration. And Korea and Japan are the competitive maritime industry for heavy shipbuilding industry, cargo carrier, processing and transhipment service on ports, and ship financial services in national competitive areas. Japan is the Tokyo maritime arbitration commission(TOMAC) as an uniquely capable of dealing with arbitrations involving problems arising in the sea field. TOMAC provides amended its arbitration rules 2014 aiming at matching with the maritime disputes circumstances with three maritime arbitration rules as ordinary rules, simplified rules and the rules of small claims arbitration procedure. KCAB however, as the unique commercial arbitration board in Korea is dealing on all of the commercial disputes on only the international commercial arbitration rules in 2011. Though KCAB is dealt with maritime dispute cases on international arbitration rules in Korea, it is small and simple compared with TOMAC in Japan. Maritime disputes are highly complicated and embroiled with multi-parties contract and subcontracts arising under contracts relating to bills of lading, charter parties, sale and purchase of ships, shipbuilding, ship financing and so forth. This paper is to provides a discussion and comparison on recently arbitration rules focus on the maritime aspects on Korea and Japan. We need to consider to make an independent and special institute and maritime arbitration rules including the multiparty consolidation and med-arb provisions for handling the disputes and resolution of maritime conflict cases in Korea.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권5호
• /
• pp.18-34
• /
• 2020

Purpose - In the international shipping industry, arbitration is mainly chosen for resolving maritime disputes. This study investigates the "acceptability" of an international maritime arbitrator based on an existing theoretical model of arbitrator acceptability. Design/methodology - Using structural equation modeling techniques, this study examines a sample of senior managers who engage in the judicial affairs of their international shipping companies to verify a hypothesized model of arbitrator acceptability that covers cultural intelligence, arbitral experience, reputation, practical/legal expertise, and procedural justice as independent variables. Furthermore, the relative "perceived required time" of arbitration is tested as a moderator. Findings - Arbitrator acceptability is significantly influenced by six constructs of arbitrator characteristics: cultural intelligence, arbitral experience, reputation, practical and legal expertise, and procedural justice. Furthermore, the moderating effect of the perceived required time of arbitration is demonstrated in the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics even though these relationships are not equally influenced. Originality/value - The originality of this study can be found in its context, that is, international maritime arbitration. Despite the potential growth of international maritime arbitration, existing studies have mainly focused on domestic arbitration. The findings of this study are expected to provide useful guidelines for nurturing international maritime arbitration in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.141-163
• /
• 2012

In Korea, although nearly all maritime arbitration cases are dealt with by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), the total number of cases that are referred to the KCAB is relatively small compared with the total number of maritime cases that occur in Korea. There may be reasons why maritime arbitration is not utilized more in Korea. However, of the above reasons, the superseding one may be that there is still a lack of confidence in the credibility and foreseeability of maritime arbitration in Korea. To expand the use of maritime arbitration in Korea, it is essential that the base surrounding maritime arbitration be expanded. In addition, it is also necessary that specialists receivetraining in maritime law. In this context, it is strongly recommended that maritime and admiralty law be taught in law schools and be included as a regular subject on the Korean bar exam. Additionally, to promote maritime arbitration, a rule should be introduced allowing for shortened arbitration proceedings in Korea. Although Chapter 8 of the KCAB Arbitration Rules provide for "Expedited Procedure," this process alone is not because the rules for Expedited Procedure generally apply in arbitration cases where both parties have agreed in a separate agreement to follow the procedures provided or in any domestic arbitration valued atless than 100,000,000 Korean won. Therefore, the KCAB Arbitration Rules for Expedited Procedure must be reformed to encompass international arbitrations. Additionally, experts who are experienced in the maritime sector should be elected as arbitrators. Given the factthat a fair number of arbitration cases can be characterized as international, it is important that businesspersons who are very fluent in English be appointed as arbitrators in order to increase the reliability of maritime arbitration in Korea and save costs. Meanwhile, because lawyers and scholars constitute a considerable portion of KCAB arbitrators, commercial persons from relevant industries should be enlisted as arbitrators. Even though there are arguments for the establishment of an independent maritime arbitration board in Korea, establishment of a separate maritime arbitration board will not directly guarantee the prosperity of maritime arbitration in Korea. Instead of instituting a new maritime arbitration board, it is better that a reorganized KCAB modify existing arbitration proceedings to make them faster and more economical if maritime arbitration is to prosper. In this regard, ad-hoc arbitration would be an option for speedy and thrifty maritime arbitration. Finally, to gain the confidence of domestic and foreign parties, we cannot ignore the importance of advertising the specialties and qualifications of the KCAB and its personnel among business entities.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.153-172
• /
• 2018

In solving international commercial disputes, arbitration has a unique advantage. Therefore, when most parties sign a charter party, they contain arbitration clauses. Whether the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading and bind to the third party-bill holder becomes an important issue. Based on the problem above, this paper compares the arbitration system between Korea and China, and discusses the composition of the Chinese Maritime Court and the Chinese court's adjudication of arbitration for foreign countries, which are recognized and enforced in China. What is most important in this study is observing the Chinese case from the beginning of 2000 to the present in order to rule whether the Chinese court can effectively incorporate the arbitration clause in the charter party into the bill of lading, as well as whether it constitutes an effective binding force for third parties and changes in standard of recognition. Finally, through comparative analysis, the study concludes that in China, the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading, and that the conditions for the third parties can be effectively restrained. There must be several points to be noted when recording the bill of lading. This would then help reduce the legal risks and promote the sustainable development of international transactions.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권40호
• /
• pp.144-161
• /
• 2016

A unanimous Award has been issued on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China. The current security issues in the regional sea shall be carefully reflected to anticipate whether the Award could resolve the existing political conflict or rather will grow military tension in the region. The Award clearly directs the scope of delimiting maritime jurisdiction to coastal States in the Southern China sea, so it seems to help facilitating finding resolutions of regional disputes on maritime boundaries. On the other hand, there are several limitations in reality to implementation of the decisions included in the Award. USA could use the decisions to restrict military activities and exercise of unilateral maritime jurisdiction by China in the region, while China shall encounter guilt to illegitimacy of its activities as well as shaking the legal foundation of its policy in the region. Then the resolution of this dispute through application of international law would rather cause more political confusion. The intension of bringing the case to an international court were to resolve political difficulties. If, however, the political difficulties are not properly reflected in the legal decisions, such decision would possibly raise more political risks.

• 해양환경안전학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 해양환경안전학회 2017년도 추계학술발표회
• /
• pp.221-221
• /
• 2017

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.303-336
• /
• 2003

Incorporation of an arbitration clause by reference to other documents occurs in many international business transactions. The reference is either to another document that contains arbitration clause or to trading rules which contain the arbitration clause, without the main contract mentioning that arbitration has been agreed upon. In fact, incorporation by reference in to a contract of an arbitration clause set forth in another agreement is deemed valid in any number of circumstances, even when the parties to the two contractual instruments are not the same. Difficulties arise when, instead of an express arbitration provision, a contract contains a clause which refers to the trading rules of a certain trade association, so-called external arbitration clause. The U.S. courts which will presume that the parties intended to arbitrate under a particular set of rules when they expressly mentioned arbitration in their agreement, have sometimes refused to enforce contract clauses that do no more than refer to particular trading rules, even if these rules contain provisions binding the parties to arbitrate their disputes. The courts in such cases tend to be careful in determinig whether intent to arbitrate is present. In maritime contracts, the arbitration clause in a charter party is often referred to in the bill of lading. Such reference usually is held binding upon the parties to the contract of carriage, their knowledge of such practice being presumed. A nonsignatory may compell arbitration against a party to an arbitration agreement when that party has entered into a separate contractual relationship with the nonsignatory which incorporates the existing arbitration clause. If a party's arbitration clause is expressly incorporated into a bill of lading, nonsignatories … who are linked to that bill … may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. An arbitration clause in a charterparty will be incorporated into a bill of lading if either - (a) there are specific words of incorporation in the bill, and the arbitration clause is so worded as to make sense in the context of the bill, and the clause dose not conflict with the express terms of the bill; or (b) there are general words of incorporation in the bill, and the arbitration clause or some other provision in the charter makes it clear that the clause is to govern disputes under the bill as well as under the charter. In all other cases, the arbitration clause is not incorporated into the bill.

• 한국정보통신학회논문지
• /
• 제23권7호
• /
• pp.881-888
• /
• 2019

국가 간 무역거래 중 해상운송의 위험화물에 대한 비중이 늘어나는 추세이며 위험화물의 종류와 형태는 매우 다양해지고, 복잡해지면서 범위 또한 넓게 확장되고 있다. 이런 이유로 운송수단인 선박과 다른 화물의 안전을 위협하게 될 사고의 위험성은 증가하게 됨은 물론이고 심각한 피해를 발생 시킨다. 운송인은 위험화물에 대한 특별한 관리와 취급을 필요로 하며 안전한 운송을 위하여 주의의무가 있다. 따라서 송하인은 선적하기 전에 위험화물의 성질과 특성을 운송인에게 통지할 의무가 있으며 통지여부에 따라 운송인의 책임이 달라진다. 본 연구에서는 위험화물의 개념과 분류 및 국제해상운송규범인 헤이그 규칙, 함부르크 규칙과 로테르담규칙의 운송인의 위험화물 책임에 관한 조항을 비교, 분석하고 사례 분석 후, 국제해상운송에 있어 위험화물 취급, 관리자인 운송인에게 정보를 제공하는데 목적을 두고자 한다.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제38권1호
• /
• pp.81-87
• /
• 2014

국제 유가의 상승과 해양에너지 개발에 필요한 기술이 진보됨에 따라 시추선(drillship), 부유식 원유생산저장설비(FPSO) 등과 같은 해양플랜트의 수요가 꾸준히 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 더불어 이러한 해양에너지 개발사업이 원활하게 이행될 수 있도록 작업을 지원해주는 다양한 종류의 해양플랜트 지원선박과 관련된 건조, 매매, 용선 시장 역시 꾸준한 성장세를 유지하고 있다. 하지만, 국내의 경우 해양플랜트 지원선박과 관련된 정기용선계약 체결 건수가 전무하기 때문에 향후 이와 관련된 선박의 매매 또는 용선계약 시 발생할 수 있는 다양한 법적 분쟁과 준거법 적용에 대한 실무적인 연구가 적극적으로 진행될 필요가 있다. 따라서 이 논문은 "SUPPLYTIME 2005"라고 통칭되고 있는 해양플랜트 지원선박용 정기용선계약서식을 중심으로 기존의 정기용선계약과 다른 특징을 개요적으로 검토함과 동시에 당사자 간에 발생할 수 있는 법적 분쟁에 대한 준거법 지정과 중재의 적용에 대한 실무적인 내용과 절차에 대해 살펴보고자 한다.