• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.189-219
• /
• 2007

Mediation is type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of the judge or a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation differs from arbitration in being a voluntary resolution rather than a judicial procedure. Thus, the parties to the dispute are not bound to accept the mediator's recommendation. Resort to mediation has become increasingly frequent for civil disputes. Mediation has been successful in many cases of civil conflict. Mediation has become increasingly important for monetary disputes as well, particularly in damage cases. While most people consider mediation a far superior experience to court, everything I tell you a mediator should not do is something that at least one mediator I have dealt with has done to a client. In theory, a mediator should never share anything you tell him or her without your permission. In theory a mediator should not "spring" evaluations on anyone in a mediation without your permission (e.g. a mediator should never say "your case is worth \OOOO and I just told the other side that). In theory a mediator should not browbeat or threaten you. At the end, usually about 55% of the time with a good mediator in Kwangju Appellate Court in 2003, the parties reach an agreement that is in their best interests. If they decide to sign off on a signed agreement, the signed agreement is binding. I obviously feel mediation is a very good thing and the numbers and surveys bear me out. This article is written about how mediation is proceeded, what is the realities, what is the problem and what is the activating way. For this study, I research with legal sociological approach using Korean Judicial Year Boot judicial document and my experience as meditator in Kwangju District Court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.77-98
• /
• 2021

International commercial mediation of intellectual property rights fully meets the interests of the parties in such disputes in terms of their needs for neutral forum of dispute resolution, cost-effective settlement, objective opinion of relevant experts, internationally enforceable solution. In addition, as a procedural flexibility, respected self-determination of the parties, exploration of possible creative business solutions, maintenance of business relationship and confidentiality of mediation are major characteristics which can be competitively differentiated from the lawsuit or arbitration. The settlement agreement as a result of the WIPO mediation has an effect of contract while the settlement agreement as a result of most domestic ones has an effect of judicial reconciliation which can be domestically enforced. The latter is not subject to the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation which establishes a harmonized legal framework for the right to invoke settlement agreements as well as for their enforcement. The WIPO international mediation system and its experience may be a good reference for Korea to take an initiative to establish a globally competitive international mediation system in the area of intellectual property rights.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.53-80
• /
• 2014

This article focuses on the Active Plan for Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) in financial Dispute. The financial consumers of Korea had suffered greatly from the IMF in 1997 and the global financial crisis in 2008, which also increased financial conflicts significantly. In particular, active financial transaction, due to the development of computer and financial techniques causes frequent consumer financial conflicts. It is beneficial to settle them for judicial economy through an alternative conflict arbitration system instead of lawsuit at the court. Many advanced countries settle financial conflicts through various ADR in their numerous financial conflicts. In the settlement of financial conflict, the ADR system, covering mediation and arbitration, is useful and appropriate. Each governmental institution has various conflict settlement organizations, and it is necessary to operate them effectively. In order to settle financial conflicts properly, it is necessary to study law on financial consumer protection, and it is also necessary to understand practical custom and practical knowledge and to systematize them. Further, it is important to manage financial conflict-related data, to accumulate professional experiences, and to prepare a financial conflict settlement system in order to introduce financial education earlier to the whole nation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.139-167
• /
• 2013

Mediation, which is part of ADR, is a method used to settle disputes amicably by employing a third party who is in a neutral position. Utilization and attention on meditation are increasing in place of litigation and arbitration owing to its effectiveness in terms of time, cost, and effectiveness in achieving an amicable settlement. As to Korea, mediation at the civil level was employed by the KCAB in July 2012 but its utilization was in ABC stage compared to mediation at the governmental and judicial levels. Based on this situation, this study reviewed the guideline and system of the KCAB through a comparison of the management system between the KCAB and AAA where mediation was in good use. This study further suggests solutions as to the development of an international commercial mediation system First, the KCAB rule is needed to create a mediation language, mediation place, mediator internationalization, and so on. Second, a system backup is necessary to ensure the enforceability and effectiveness of mediation. Third, a unified mediation law in Korea is desirable for the harmonization of mediations at civil, governmental, and judicial levels. The unified mediation law, if it is made, may lead to an international base where this requirement exists. Fourth, advertising the merits of mediation to the public is necessary. Fifth, securing specialized mediators and relevant training are essential. If the above requirements are implemented, Korea would advance in international commercial disputes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this article is to examine the "Annulment" of ICSID Arbitration Award. Most of the international conventions provide for arbitration as the preferred method of dispute settlement. In general they either provide for ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules or under the rules of an acceptable arbitration institution, e.g. ICC, AAA, LCIA and in particular ICSID. The most distinctive feature of ICSID arbitration is the self-contained and exhaustive nature of its review procedures. Unlike other arbitration regimes, control is exercised by internal procedures rather than by the courts. Remedies against the award are limited to those provided for in the Convention and do not include court involvement. Especially, the annulment of the ICSID award by an ad hoc committee must be considered as jeopardizing ICSID Arbitration because it clearly depart from the current trends of international commercial arbitration which limits any kinds of judicial review and excludes any kinds of review on the merits. I wish that the future decisions of the ad hoc committees will restore a narrow scope to the ICSID procedure of annulment in order not to endanger the ICSID Arbitration mechanism.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 2002

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a system to settle disputes without having to pursue a judgment through the courts; it provides an alternative to conventional judicial proceedings. As such, ADR is available to resolve a wide range of disputes, ranging from minor disagreements between neighbors to contracts involving millions of dollars. One can say there has been “efficient resolution of a dispute” only when it has been settled rapidly and finally to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, inexpensively and in a transparent manner. In this respect, ADR may well be regarded as the most efficient method to resolve disputes. In order to establish and disseminate ADR as a practical dispute-settlement procedure, first, governmental financial support is necessary, rather than having to depend upon fees collected from the disputing parties. At the same time, various inducement policies also are required. The most important factor is to make people aware of the fact that ADR is a low-cost, speedy system and more practical compared with other procedures. Second, cooperation from legal circles, lawyers in particular, is absolutely necessary. If disputes become serious, the general public normally seeks out lawyers for advice. Third, disputing parties have to be convinced of the benefits of ADR, secure in the knowledge that ADR will provide them not only with economic benefit but also a satisfactory result. Diverse ADR procedures should be developed and implemented to facilitate participation in a comfortable atmosphere with a mutually friendly relationship. The most important factor in achieving the wider use of ADR, which is attracting more attention of late, is the expectation that it will bring a satisfactory resolution to the related parties in dispute. The trend of seeking a new dispute-settlement method also reflects the changing sense of values in society today. Therefore, one specific method is not suitable for all kinds of disputes. A proper system should offer different approaches according to the pattern and type of dispute and the parties concerned. In selecting a dispute-resolution system, several factors have to be considered - the relationship between the parties, their financial situations, the necessity of maintaining confidentiality, urgency for settlement, etc. In the light of all these, it is desirable for the disputing parties to select the most appropriate of the available systems, not blindly turning to the courts, if and when a dispute arises.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2003

The primary objective of this thesis is to study, case by case, the international disputes for fishing rights between fishing nations and costal states never imagined till the introduction of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted in 1982 and came into effect in November 16, 1994, which governs the high seas and EEZ in a new manner. Such a study is to provide help in the understanding on this new marine system and how to deal with. This is addressed by the perspectives of disputes (a) in the high seas between fishing nations having traditionally enjoyed the principle of the freedom of the high seas and costal states, (b) in the EEZ between fishing nations and costal states possessing the exclusive jurisdiction over living marine resources and sovereign rights for determining allowable catch and the surplus in its EEZ. The article can be divided into four main parts. First, both the general principles of the settlement of international disputes, and the nature and procedures described in the UNCLOS are introduced. Second, it gives cases of tuna long-liner, North Pacific trawler and squid jigger occurred in the coastal states EEZ, and analyses the problem in both terms of its background and final judgment. It further describes the possible issues in case it depends on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for its settlement. Third, closely tied to above, important points such as the right of hot pursuit, prompt release of vessel and crew, and the limits of cooperation with costal states inspector on board fishing vessels are considered mostly based on the UNCLOS, Bilateral Agreement and UNIA. Finally, the article concludes as follows ; The need for broad analyses on the nature of international suits and legal system for the settlement, to win the case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or coastal states court, is really acknowledged. However, considering the lack of previous studies about it, it is preferably recommended that governmental efforts for making legal standards to cover the judicial costs, for helping industry out of becoming bankrupt.

• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.26 no.1D
• /
• pp.115-123
• /
• 2006

Recently, construction claims have been increased for protecting the rights of construction participants and effectively adjusting the changes under the contract. Thus, the importance of claim management has been emphasized in the construction industry. In domestic construction industry, some claim issues involved in construction activities are often being developed into disputes and even litigations because of the absence of methods or systems for the dispute resolution, and the lack of judicial precedents which can be provided as the references for resolving a particular dispute. In general, the judicial precedents related to the disputes and litigations occurred among construction participants would be extremely valuable in evaluating and analyzing current claims issues. However, such useful information has not been effectively accumulated and utilized in resolving the similar or sometimes identical types of disputes, thus requiring a large amount of additional costs, time and efforts. The primary objective of this study is to propose a web-based decision support system for construction claim management, which enables contractual participants to easily access and use the information of the judicial precedents related to the current construction claims. The decision support system is composed of 'prevention' and 'settlement' modules for avoiding and systematically resolving the construction claims.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.377-413
• /
• 2004

North Korea and South Korea agreed to refer their investment disputes to arbitration by adopting' Agreed Minutes on Procedures of Settlement of Commercial Disputes' on 16th December 2000. According to the Agreed Minutes, the two Koreas were to establish an arbitration commission within 6 months after the Agreed Minutes had been signed. In 2002, North Korea enacted laws to draw interest of foreign tourists to Mountain Kumgang and to boost investment into the region of Kaesung as it provided in those laws that commercial disputes should be settled by arbitration or judicial procedures. In October 2003, the two Koreas succeeded in adopting another Agreed Minutes as to the establishment and functioning of North-South Arbitration Commission. The fact that the two Koreas have agreed to establish an arbitration commission is meaningful since they are leading their lives quite differently in political, social, and economic sense for more than a half century. Although there still remain doubts as to the North Korean policy on nuclear matters, an arbitration commission could be a cornerstone for the set-up of the dispute settlement system between the two Koreas and a great help for investors from South Korea to pursue their possible legal claims as North Korea is eager to invite South Korean businessmen and other foreign investors to invest in its special economic areas. According to the Agreed Minutes of 2003, the two Koreas are going to adopt procedural rules for the arbitration commission. It will be a great challenge for them to agree on specific issues as to the operation of the arbitration commission. They have to set up a rester of arbitrators respectively and may have to enact or revise their own arbitration laws and rules reflecting the Agreed Minutes of 2000 and 2003. It is quite welcome that the two Koreas have agreed to set up an arbitration commission rather than resort to political or diplomatic means to settle their disputes. The success of the arbitration system between the two Koreas will make sure the safety of investment environment in the northen part of the Korean Peninsula and will bring the peace to the Korean peninsula earlier than expected.