• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.181-209
• /
• 2004

This Study is divided into 5 separate Parts and an Abstract. Part Ⅰ, Ⅱ consist mostly of a collection of problems, current status, motives and the future of ADR. In Pert Ⅲ was described ADR as policies of judicial settlements. We must accept that a diversity of legal culture will always continue to exist. Accordingly we must learn to accommodate those differences of 'culture' around us and to harmonize conflicting laws. This recognition of our reality should in no way be confused with pessimism. In fact if one accepts this perspective of the world ,the study of law seems enriched and becomes academically more challenging. Recently, in the United States, interest in alternative settlement mechanism has increased greatly, which leads me to wonder why such a phenomenon has taken place. In the first place, I'm amazed at the extent to which conciliation or mediation-or the new word, I guess, is alternative dispute resolution, which by now has its own acronym, "A.D.R,"-have gained attention here recently. When 35 years ago, there was virtually no interest in conciliation in this country at the time. What interest there was, was no in the law schools. But looking at the situation now, we have a spate of publications on the subject; we have organizations that are established for no other reason than to promote alternative dispute settlement. We have courses in the law schools. The American Association of Law Schools and the American Bar Association also have active programs. So we have to ask ourselves why. The difference between now and 35 years are striking. On the other hand, I think the interest of the public in ADR has probably been greatly enhanced by the politics of the so-called "poverty programs." I think that many of these assistance programs for the poor-and I do think the "poor" have become a rather expansive political movement beyond simply taking care of the most marginal people of society-have generated money to explore this kind of dispute resolution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2006

Arbitration, which involves a final determination of disputes, has elements of the judicial process. Although an alternative to formal court litigation, it does not replace it in all aspect, but rather coexists with court procedure as an adjunct and part of administering justice. As the international trade has the basic problems of business managed between the parties of other countries having different laws, customs, cultures, currencies and religions. It has been known that these defects caused the commercial disputes and suspended economic fluence in world economic development through the foreign business. The United Nations launched 'the United Nations Convention on the Enforcement and Recognition of the Foreign Arbitral Awards' in 1958 to give effect to the international commercial arbitration. However, the convention has the limitation in excluding the legal obstacles originated from domestic arbitration systems of every states. As the result, the UN succeeded in making world wide arbitration law named 'The UN Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration' in 1983 and recommended all member countries to accept it to revise their domestic arbitration laws thereafter. Korea revised national arbitration law accepting 100% of the model law in 2000. In this respect korea became to have the international dispute settlement system. Korea will be able to settle more business disputes arisen from the international trade and enjoy the world credibility through the new arbitration system.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.313-328
• /
• 2013

Today FTA extends over the world and Korea as a main member of international trade is no exception. In the past Korea, as the developing countries, has made endlessly effort to induce foreign investment from foreign enterprise and/or government to be a truly OECD countries today and made it. Korea's trade economy was reached 1 trillion dollars in 2012. Now we have to find a new way to produce, process, procure goods from foreign investment and also need to protect our profit and/or rights within foreign judicial territory. There are two method to protect foreign enterprise or government. First they rely on general principles in WTO or Bilateral Investment Treaty that the principle of equality, national treatment, and most-favored-nation treatment, you can create a predictable environment to protect foreign enterprise and/or government. Second they need to incorporate contractual clauses in their agreement such as stabilization clause, force majeure, arbitration, governing law or sovereign immunity. Of course there are many things left behind to consider I hope it will be helpful to those who prepare foreign investment contract.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 1998

Recently many controversies originate for varies reasons, ranging from normal market competition to honest disagreements about rights. Disputes also arise from the clash between institutions and individuals. A free society should provide many systems for resolving controversies. We think of the courts as being primary, but, of course, they are not. In Korea, and in most other parts of the world, disagreements are resolved informally, without the need for judicial intervention. Settlements are worked out privately, usually without lawyers and certainly without judges. Most of judges are finding it difficult to cope with the needs and demands of society. Many businessmen who no longer want to get involved in lawsuits, are looking for alternative methods for resolving their disputes. However, there are actually two systems, litigation and arbitration only, to resolve disputes with binding both parties concerned. Litigation emphasizes on the equity and the justice with allowing three time's judgment for the resonable resolution, and arbitration, which is not subject to appeal, stress on the economic settlement rather than justice. Arbitration process results in a final and binding decisions. Although arbitration is a voluntary procedures that is created by the parties themselves, arbitration differs from mediation and conciliation because of its binding power. Arbitration is today coming into fashion as our primary methods for settling disputes. No company wants to have its funds tied up for long periods. Many parties prefer that the decision be final, rather than facing the prospect of extended appellate litigation. Therefore, government must encourage parties to settle their disputes by arbitration instead of litigation.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.81-91
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to analyze judicial precedents related on landscape construction defects(JPLCD) and suggested the improvement plan for dealing with it. The results are as the following: 1. Landscape construction defects litigations have been increased so far since 2000 and the duration of original trial was approximately 603 days, while appeal trials took up to 550 days. Therefore, the analysis revealed that settlement of disputes were lengthy and wasteful to consumers and constructors. 2. Judgement's cost accepted by the judge was only 53.6% of appraisal's cost appraised by appraiser, therefore it revealed appraiser overestimated the repair cost of landscape construction defects. 3. According to work classification categorized by Landscape Construction Standard Specification(2008) of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, landscape planting amounted to 75% of JPLCD and plaintiff(consumers)'s prevailing rate of it reached 77% to be a serious burden to constructors. 4. According to JPLCD categorized by the type of dispute, defects caused by consumer's negligence for maintenance amounted to 29% and defendant(constructors)'s prevailing rate of it reached 64% to be the main responsibility of consumers. Further study will be required to make the judge standard of landscape construction defects through legal and technical research.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.27-66
• /
• 2005

From the reunification of Germany we can learn much for the reunification of Korea. That particularly applies for the dispute resolution of the trade relations between both states. The domestic trade relation, which was the only contractually regulated relation between two states for a long period of time, played a crucial role in the reunification of Germany, In this research paper, we examine how the economic disputes in divided Germany had been settled, and consider for the amicable economic relations between south and north Korea, what can we learn from that. In Germany, the disputes from the trade relations could be settled via the civil procedure, because the judicial codes of both German states were the same until 1975, However, that does not apply in Korea, as two Koreas have another law and another court system, from the start. We argue that arbitration is the best way for the completion of the economic disputes. Besides the general advantages of the arbitral procedure, the arbitration is particularly suitable to regulate the economic disputes from Korea-Korea relations, because of glaring differences of the legal status and reality of both countries. Furthermore, the standing arbitral tribunals would be in the economic relations between two Koreas more effectively than the ad-hoc arbitral tribunals. The ad-hoc arbitration generally requires a lot of time to setting up an arbitral Oibunal. For the rapid and obligatory settlement of dispute, the Convention of Currency, Economic and Social Union between West and East Germany 1990(Staatsvefrag zur Wahrungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialunion zwischen der Bundesrepublik und der DDR) also planned the institutional arbitration. The organizational support of the internal-Korean arbitration can take place via already existing institution, namely in south Korea 'The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board' Periodic decision reports and publication of substantial awards at the early stage seem appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.45-58
• /
• 2014

It is a well recognised rule in international law that the property of aliens cannot be taken. The question of whether indirect expropriation and government regulatory measures require compensation is an important issue in international investment law. Bilateral investment treaties and other investment agreements contain brief and general indirect expropriation provisions. These focus on the effect of government action and do not address the distinction between compensable and non-compensable regulatory actions. It is generally accepted that a state is not responsible for loss of property or for other economic disadvantages resulting from bona fide general taxation accepted as within the police power of states, provided it is not discriminatory. Yukos Oil Company is a Russian oil and gas company engaged in exploration, refining, and marketing activities. It is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. Yukos Oil Company has its production operations in Russia and markets its products in Europe. An international tribunal ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish investors for the losses they suffered when Russia seized the Yukos Oil Company on July 26, 2012. This has been the subject of several judicial proceedings and academic publications. This paper explores which circumstances do not lead to taxation amounting to expropriation. The author suggests that under the following circumstances, taxation would not amount to expropriation. First, taxation should be non-discriminatory. Also a lawful exercise of the taxation powers of governments would not amount to expropriation.

• 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.18 no.1
• /
• pp.97-119
• /
• 2008

The reluctance of Latin American countries to practice international arbitration is not a new topic in international law. This reluctance historically based on Calvo Doctrine provoked not only the absence of Latin American countries from the major international commercial arbitration conventions, but obsolete national arbitration legislation. Recently, however, these countries have undertaken major steps showing that the region is no longer reluctant to practice international commercial arbitration. Most Latin American countries have ratified the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("Washington Convention") and the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration ("Panama Convention"). The majority of Latin American countries have also modified and adapted their national legislation on arbitration to the UNCITRAL model law. Even judiciary has been following this pro-arbitration. This article will focus on some of these factors provoking the acceptance of international commercial arbitration in Latin America to trace the common trends and characteristics in an attempt to understand better how international arbitration set on its place firmly. For this purpose we selected five countries, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela, to analyse legislations and jurisprudence. Latin America is ready to challenge any obstacles to promote arbitration as alternative methods of judicial resolution. There is an ever-increasing number of international arbitration in Latin America. Both practitioners and judiciary have shown desires to promote the resolution of disputes by arbitration and used the legal instruments to ensure that process interpreting and applying legislations for pro-arbitration. Even there remains Calvo Doctrine's culture in Latin America still now, it should be certain this culture will disappear from the conduct of international arbitration.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• 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.