• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.175-230
• /
• 2016

The controversies that have surrounded the negotiation of both the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have underlined the difficulties arising out from the adoption of a truly common EU investment policy. Non-governmental organizations have called into question transparency and legitimacy of international investment arbitration during the negotiations. The article presents a reflection about current developments of the EU investment policy addressing, in particular, the criticisms towards the whole investor-to-State system and the EU's efforts in developing a "tailor-made" investment agreement and Investor-to-State Dispute resolution system. Along these lines, the article critically assesses the recently announced proposal for the establishment of an 'Investment Court System' put forward by the EU during the TTIP negotiations.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.61-88
• /
• 2018

Myanmar has witnessed rapid economic growth in the 21st century. The cultural heritage of Myanmar (Burma) inherited from ancestors is law literature such as Dhammathat and Rajathat. Burma is a unique country in Southeast Asia in a sense that it already had a modern law system. For example, there has been a legal profession even in 12th century AD. According to Rajathat, lawyers were required to wear a uniform in court. Furthermore, lawyers and Judges participated in legal proceedings from the 15th century. As to the role of Dhammathat, there are conflicting views in the academic community. According to Professor Andrew Huxley, the profound literatures of Dhammathat had played an important role as a source of law in Burmese court in ancient times. Dhammathats have flourished in the struggle among the King, lawyers, and monks in old Burmese society. This customary law combined with Rajathat provided a guidance of legal proceedings in Burmese court, as well as village settlement. This traditional dispute resolution system reaches modern times in the form of Buddhist family law in Myanmar. Nowadays, the law system of Myanmar looks like a legal pluralism since the customary laws of Burma, as well as Shan and Arakan, are effective and co-exist with common law adopted at the colonial period. In recent times, Myanmar has enacted new arbitration laws (2016) in order to attract foreign direct investment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2021

Chinese courts seem to be indifferent or ignorant of truncated arbitration. In other words, the Chinese court canceled the arbitration award made by truncated arbitration except for the Pingdingsan Case among the four arbitration cases related to the domestic arbitration award reviewed in this paper on the ground that it violated the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure. A Chinese court has canceled the arbitration award by judging only based on the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the legal process of the violation of the arbitration procedure not by determining whether the domestic arbitration award made by the truncated arbitration meets the conditions for the application of truncated arbitration as stipulated in the Arbitration Rules. Moreover, it seems that the Chinese court made a serious error in the application of the relevant regulations in the Pingdingsan Case, which ruled that the truncated arbitration did not violate the legal process. In this case, the Chinese court admitted truncated arbitration under logic process that it was not necessary to wait until the final hearing to apply the truncated arbitraion because one arbitrator was absent before the final hearing, but the truncated arbitrator had already formed his/her opinion before the absence. However, in the case of Marshall Investment Corporation, a case related to foreign arbitration, the Chinese court rejected the approval and execution of the truncated arbitration award by strictly applying the laws and timing of the truncated arbitration. Since only one case has been identified in the main text, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment, but considering these cases, it seems to be that the Chinese courts apply different standards to domestic and foreign arbitration awards to determine the legality of truncated arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This article examines the Annulment Mechanism of arbitral awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The primary feature in the ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration regarding the review of awards involves the unified nature of the ICSID system, as compared to the scattered and multi-layered system of review existing under arbitration rules, national legislation, and international convention. This unity can be perceived at different levels. The ICSID annulment mechanism entails only a set of rules; thus, only one set of application standards of review will be implemented, as opposed to sometimes conflicting layers of application rules, laws, and convention, as in the case of non-ICSID arbitration. However, some of the recent annulment decisions have raised serious questions about the breadth of annulment in practice, as opposed to its original design. Nonetheless, implementing a new system under the ICSID awards to be reviewed by an appellate court appears to create more problems than it solves. The potential impact of introducing that mechanism could result in a longer and more complex proceeding, with uncertain benefits.

• 한국인터넷방송통신학회논문지
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.151-161
• /
• 2022

글로벌 CP들로 인해 인터넷의 트래픽이 급증하면서 망 투자비용을 분담하여야 한다는 주장이 업계에서 대두하였다. 이로 인해 망 중립성의 원칙이 접근성에서 비용 부담으로 논점이 크게 바뀌었다. 유료화된 트래픽의 우선처리가 각국에서 인정을 받았음에도 불구하고, 학계의 일부에서는 인터넷 공간에서 망 사용료 지불에 대한 부정적인 시각이 있었다. 그러나 업계에서는 사업자들 사이에 분쟁이 다수 발생하였고, 일부는 법정 다툼으로 비화되면서 법원의 판결에 관심이 쏠렸다. 법원이 망 중립성 하에서 유상성을 인정하기 시작하였고, 정부도 이에 대응하여 규제를 정비하는 등 우리나라는 빠르게 대처해 왔다. 그러나 여전히 서비스 안정에 초점을 맞추고 있으며, 직접적으로 망 이용대가의 지불을 규정한 규제는 아직 없다. 본 연구에서는 망 중립성에 대한 사업자간 분쟁 및 법원의 판결, 규제의 개선 사례를 분석하여 망 중립성의 변화를 고찰하였으며, 공유지의 비극 사례를 참고하여 수익자 부담의 원칙에 입각한 올바른 가격신호의 복원이 가장 중요한 해결책임을 제시하였다. CP의 망 사용료 지급도 그 방안의 하나이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.3-18
• /
• 2017

International legal reviews on ISD, a procedure for resolving disputes under the Korea-US FTA, are examined from the perspective of law. If the ISD system does not exist, even if the investor suffers damage due to the illegal act of the host country, he or she must file a lawsuit through the court of the host country, which is unreasonable from the investor's point of view and makes it difficult to guarantee fairness and transparency. Some of the Koreans pointed out that there are some problems with the KORUS FTA dispute settlement regulations, and that the United States federal courts are taking a friendly attitude to the decisions made by the US Customs in determining the dispute by the KORUS FTA Agreement and the US Customs Act. In cases where the State does not violate international law but results in harmful consequences, the responsibility of one country is borne by the treaty. Foreign investment always comes with many challenges and risks. Therefore, the ISD system is a fair and universal arbitration system, which is considered to be a necessary system even for protecting the Korean companies investing abroad. In the investment treaty, compensation for the nationalization of foreign property and reimbursement under the laws of the host country were dissatisfied with foreign investors. In particular, some Koreans have pointed out that there are some problems in the KORUS FTA dispute resolution regulations and there is a need for further discussion and research. Based on the experiences and wisdoms gained in the course of Korea-US FTA negotiations, the dispute arbitration mechanism is urgently needed to reduce the possibility of disputes and to make amicable directions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2014

These days, in line with the increase of opportunities in our country's firms to do transaction, large-scale M&A and investment with foreign firms incorporating arbitration clauses in the contracts have become general practice. Recently, Singapore has come to the fore as a place of arbitration and, particularly, Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) was assessed as the favored international arbitration institution uniquely in Asia at the 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, along with the ICC, LCIA, and AAA/ICDR. Therefore, the country's firms need to understand properly the international arbitration procedure of Singapore. This study examines the international arbitration system of Singapore, focusing on the arbitration procedure of the SIAC. The Center revised arbitration rules twice in 2010 and 2013, and established the Court of Arbitration of SIAC in April 2013 for the first time in Asia in pursuit of stricter neutrality and promptness. It further seeks to run the arbitration procedure fairly by selecting a third country's people as an arbitrator, while its arbitration expenses are cheaper than those of the ICC. The study believes that for the country's international arbitration institutions such as the KCAB to jump forward as a world-class international arbitration institution, the Korean government should render positive support to them, learning from Singapore which does not spare any political and financial assistance to cultivate international arbitration institutions. On the other hand, KCAB should also try hard to improve in the aspects of neutrality, fairness, and promptness and to be selected as a trustworthy international arbitration institution by firms in Asian countries.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.43-62
• /
• 2004

The present study reviewed the meanings of mediation and the roles of mediators, and examined the necessities of online mediation system, prerequisites for the settlement of the system, foreign cases of promoting online mediation and the current state of online mediation in Korea. It also identified problems in the mediation system in Korea and, based on the analysis of problems, discussed directions for the development of Korean mediation system in broad perspective. Directions for the development of Korean online mediation system suggested in this study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the government must make an unsparing investment in order to activate online mediation system in Korea. Secondly, from the aspect of online mediation procedure, it is necessary to introduce online mediation system in combination with online seal system or certification marks. Thirdly, the judicial circle must take an amicable attitude toward ADR system and, furthermore, it is necessary for the court to be active in introducing various ADR systems. Fourthly, it is necessary to establish an integrated mediation system for the efficiency of mediation and cost saving. Fifthly, mediators must be provided with systematic and exhaustive periodical retraining programs. Lastly, it is necessary to help people to recognize that mediation system is a better service than other forms of dispute resolution procedure and particularly to enhance users' confidence in online mediation through advertising its advantages and safety. Moreover, in order to make e-commerce-related online dispute resolution available to everybody, it is necessary to overcome language barriers by establishing perfect service systems including automatic translation system in the governmental dimension.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2016

In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.