• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.115-137
• /
• 1999

The UNCITRAL, during its thirty-two session in 1999 discussed certain issues and problems identified in interactional commercial arbitration practice. The issues discussed include certain aspects if conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; arbitability ; soverign immunity ; consolidation of more than one case into one arbitral proceedings ; confidentiality of information in arbitral proceedings ; rasing claims in arbitral proceedings for the purpose of set-off ; decisions by "turncated" arbitral tribunals liability of arbitrators ; power by the arbitral tribunal to award interest ; costs of arbitral proceedings ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the state of origin. Among those issues discussed, most of States agreed that the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the State of origin should have priority over other issues. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues, possibly indicating whether further work should be towards a legislative text (such as a model legislative provision or a treaty) or a non-legislative text (such as a model contractual rule).

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2019

This research examines the constitutional meaning of the right to health through reviewing the decisions of the Constitutional Court and proposed amendment of the Constitution issued by the President. This article further discusses the relationship between the right to a humane livelihood and the right to health. Health is a fundamental freedom and inalienable human right which is a prerequisite to accomplish individual's independent activity and realization of value. Thus, the government is obligated to protect and uphold the right. Article 36(3) of the Constitution delineates the government's duty to protect and fulfill the right to health. Through the interpretation of both Article 36(3) and Article 34 of the Constitution, I suggest that the right to health implies 'the right to social security for health'. The Constitutional Court has narrowly interpreted the scope of the right to a humane livelihood by defining the term as "minimum material living standards". However, it should be interpreted as 'the right to enjoy a healthy and cultural life for human dignity' and setting the level of protection is solely on the discretion of the legislative branch. Ultimately, the judicial review on the right to a humane livelihood connects with the issue of rational control for legislative discretion.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.85-111
• /
• 2018

This study examines the puzzle of institutional change of irregular worker protection system in Korea through a theory of incremental institutional change. It is the case of "conversion" mode of institutional change that occurs when ambiguous rules permit reinterpretations of rules and regulations for converting functions of institutions into new ones without formal revision. Management sectors with enforcement power have circumvented main rules of high discretion since 2007. In institutional dimension, the extent of irregular workers and the provisions of limit on employment-period and prohibition-correction on discrimination lack sufficient details. In political context, veto possibilities have been downward. Irregular workers were hardly organized independently and two labor union federations mainly composed of regular workers were less receptive to them. Veto possibilities in legislation were also low: the Economic and Social Development Commission ended up in weak labor representation and labor parties in the National Assembly have undergone dissolution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.77-100
• /
• 2019

Third-party funding in international and domestic disputes is a fast-growing trend and it is increasingly used by large, solvent companies that simply wish to share risk in their finance. On January 10, 2017, the Civil Law Amendment Bill was passed in Singapore and on June 2017 an "Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) Bill" in Hong-Kong had a third-party funding to finance the international arbitration and other dispute resolutions expressly approved. This arbitral tribunal's expanding discretion over critical interim measure of security cost was in issue. In Essar v. Norscot (2016), the arbitrator found that the additional third-party funding costs were recoverable as "other costs of the parties." In here, the decision showed the issue of a tribunal's power over cost measures could spread out to be reviewed and broadened through the legislative process. A recent investor-state arbitration case of ICSID, RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, covered the express awarding of security for costs where a claimant was funded by a third-party funder. It seems inevitable that the volume of third-party funding industry will grow more as time goes on. The next step would be to formulate guidelines on how to determine criteria against which an application for security for costs is measured.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2019

Even after the Constitutional Court decided on August 23, 2012 that the provisions of abortion were constitutional, discussions on the abolition of abortion continued. The controversy about abortion is not only happening recently, but it has already existed since the time when the Penal Code was enacted, and it shares the history of modern legislation with the Republic of Korea. Legislators whom submitted amendment while insisting upon the eradication of abortion in the process of enacting criminal law at that time, presented social and economic adaptation reasons as the core reason. From then on, the abolition of abortion has been discussed during the development dictatorship, but this was not intended to guarantee women's human rights, but it was closely connected to the national policy projects of "Contraception" and "Family Planning" of the Park's dictatorship. Since then, the enactment of the Mother and Child Health Law, which restrictively allow artificial abortion, was held on February 8, 1973, in an emergency cabinet meeting that replaced the legislative power after the National Assembly was disbanded. It became effected May 10th. The reason behind the Mother and Child Health Law that included legalization of abortion in part was that the Revitalizing Reform at that time did not allow any opinion, so it seem to be it was difficult for the religious to express opposition. The "Maternal and Child Health Law" enacted in this way has been maintained through several amendments. It can be seen that the question of maintenance of abortion has been running on parallel lines without any significant difference from the time when the Penal Code was enacted. On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitutional Opinion and the unonstitutional Opinion were 4: 4. However, it was decided by the Constitution without satisfying the quorum for unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court. This argument about abolition of abortion is settled for the the time being with the decision of the constitutional inconsistency of the Constitutional Court, and now, the National Assembly bears the issue of new legislation. In other words, the improved legislation must be executed until December 31, 2020, and if the previous improved legislation is not implemented, the crime of abortion (Article 269, Paragraph 1, Article 270 of the Criminal Code) Article 1 (1) will cease to be effective from 1 January 2021. Therefore, in the following, we will look into the reason of the Constitutional Court's constitutional discordance adjudication on criminal abortion(II), and how it structurally differs from the previous Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. After considering key issues arised from the constitutional discordance adjudication(III), the legislative direction and within the scope of legislative discretion in accordance with the criteria presented by the Constitutional Court We reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penal Code and the Mather and Child Health Act of Korea(IV).

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.59 no.4
• /
• pp.137-162
• /
• 2007

In democracy basic rights such as political equality and participation through elections have been respected, opportunities of corporation and opposition have been guaranteed, and ability of self-learning and self-correction have been developed. These positive factors give preconditions for the welfare development in the democratic state. Because in this state adults get the suffrage and the open competition for official positions induces political parties use social policies as means to win the election. That is to say, political parties have an incentive to use various social policies to win the election. Democracy, therefore, has affinity with social policy. The affinity between democracy and social policy can be found also in Korea which was democratized in 1987. But, in Korea, the positive relationship between democracy and social policy is very weak due to the problem of constitutional structures. Korean Parliament usually enacts abstract social act and delegates the right to fill concrete contents of the social acts to the executive. Delegation itself has no problem, but excessive delegation is a problem since the executive can overuse its discretion as sacrificing the social rights of the citizen. In addition social consensus could not be achieved in this constitutional structures, which are a obstacle to establishing a political process in the Parliament to promote the welfare development through party competition. Excessive delegation should be reduced, and the Parliament should fill concrete contents of the social acts as exercising its legislative power more. Then a mechanism of welfare development can be launched in Korea.