• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2005

The purposes of this paper are to investigate how deeply the courts in Korea and the U.S. are involved in the enforcement process of the arbitral award. The extent of judicial review of arbitral award and the procedures to execute the arbitral award were explored and compared in each of the countries. In Korea the winning party should file a suit for enforcement judgement to execute the arbitral award, while the winning party in the U.S. should file an application for motion. Such difference in the execution process between Korea and the U.S. may be led to a higher burden on the Korean winning party in the execution process due to the complexity and instability during the new litigation for enforcement judgement. In addition, the Korean Arbitration Act does not grant any authority for the court to intervene with the substantive matters in the arbitral award, while in the U.S. the Common Law allows the court to vacate the arbitral ward when the arbitral award is entered with the manifest disregard of the law by the arbitral tribunal. It would be more practical for the court to supplementarily intervene with the arbitral award which obviously hurts the legal interest of the arbitral parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.129-151
• /
• 2003

Nowadays even if environment of international commercial transaction is changing quickly municipal law could not meet with such change accordingly. So far, however, efforts towards unification have prevailingly taken the form of binding instruments, such as non-national or supranational legislation, international conventions or international model laws. Among them, the UNIDROIT Principles with parties' autonomous and yet non-binding character do not only meet the substantive requirements of a true law merchant. In addition they also counter some of the main points of criticism against the modern lex mercatoria. As such the Principles constitute a cornerstone in the lex mercatoria debate and may become the heart of the new lex mercatoria. The purpose of this article is to ask whether there could be applied the Principles in international commerce. For the purpose it is to investigate when the Principles are applied in international commerce and how effectively the Principles are applied for the decision in international commercial disputes. Even though the Principles are used for reference by parties involved for the voluntary regulation of their contract, it is sufficiently expected that the Principles are to be a stepstone of uniform contract law in international commerce. Until now cases of appling the Principles are not satisfied with its expectation as a source of non-legislative means of unification or harmonization of law. Given the party's autonomy in the contract, this is among other things because business parties are strongly tend to observe their national laws in their international commerce. And also, even though there are a number of neutral and uniform regulations for international commercial contracts, parties do not often recognize their usefulness with being up to expectation. In order to explore the applicability of the Principles a number of cases of ICC International Court of Arbitration and others are quoted.

• 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.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.27-57
• /
• 2013

Traditionally construction has been an industry that favoured ADR over formal litigation due to the complexity of technical issues. However, over the past decade construction arbitration has come under increasing attack for its rising costs and growing delays, and expansion of arbitration processes to the point that those processes are approaching the more complex and formal processes followed to resolve disputes litigation. As a result, parties are looking for new methods of resolving their disputes in a more efficient and economical manner, such as ODR. A review of the history of ODR and the practical applications of ODR in use today lead to the conclusion that the concept of ODR for construction dispute resolution appears to be possible and realistic. The advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages, especially given the solutions suggested to overcome many of the disadvantages. While ODR may not be a realistic venue for large complex construction cases, it may be just the ideal venue for smaller and simple construction disputes. In conclusion, given the advantages that ODR arbitration does offer, the most realistic use of ODR in the short term would involve disputes consisting of a simple, one-dimensional dispute within which the parties can stipulate to the facts in the case. In such simple disputes ODR may be not only an appropriate vehicle within which the dispute can be resolved; it might be more easily accepted by the parties as the preferred platform for resolution. Hopefully, international institutions of arbitration will be successful in their development of a international standards and platform fir disputes that can be adapted for use in construction and will serve as the first step in developing ways to handle small construction claims, thereby allowing parties to resolve their disputes in a faster and more economical manner.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan have a singular political relationship. This distinctive relationship creates a unique impact on the nationality of the arbitral awards among the said countries. Each of these regions does not adopt the arbitral award of the other party as either a foreign arbitration award or a domestic arbitration award, but separately adopts the arbitral award in different jurisdictions within the same country. Therefore, in order to approve and enforce their arbitral awards in other areas, they have no choice to apply special laws or the conventions concluded between them, neither the New York Convention nor the individual arbitration laws in those areas. Therefore, this paper reviewed the convention and self-established laws among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regarding the approval and execution of the other arbitral awards. In addition, the domestic laws in China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan are compared with the New York Convention to ascertain the criteria for distinguishing domestic and foreign arbitral awards. This study also compared and analyzed what criteria were established for the determination of the nationality of the arbitral awards in the domestic law or the convention concluded in pan China. Through the analysis of these contents, the characteristics and problems of criterion for the determination of nationality among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan were identified. Based on the results, this study examined the precautions Korean companies entering these regions should use in the arbitration system in these areas.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.141-164
• /
• 2013

The current Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) ${\S}37(2)$ requires that a formal copy of an arbitral award or a duly certified copy thereof and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof be produced for the recognition and enforcement of a arbitral award. But as the KAA provides that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award to which the New York Convention applies shall be granted in accordance with the Convention, the duly authenticated original award should be produced instead of a formal copy in that case. The provision on the documents to produce for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is set to establish a reasonable and transparent standard and to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of awards by prohibiting parochial refusal of the recognition and enforcement on the grounds of formalities. Therefore it is necessary to simplify those documents according to the internationally acknowledged standard. It would be desirable to amend KAA ${\S}37(2)$ to require only "the original arbitral award or a copy thereof" without authentication or certification and a translation into Korean without any condition, adopting the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-167
• /
• 2010

The enforcement of commercial arbitration awards in the People's Republic of China is one the controversial obstacles faced by foreign investors in China. The foreign investor will fail to enforce the arbitration award, if the Chinese court refuses the enforcement in China, even if the arbitration tribunal rules the award in favor of foreign investor who is in dispute with Chinese partners. In Korea, we have not many researches in the enforcement of foreign related awards and awards ruled by other jurisdiction. In recent times, Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) and Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) reports the details of the enforcement statistics of CIETAC during 1990s. Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the obstacles of the enforcement of foreign related awards in China. This paper extends their researches in the field of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. First, this paper extends Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005)'s study by introducing the Chinese enforcement situation during the period of 2000-2007. Second, this paper extends Professor Sunjung Kim(2008) emphasizes the local protectionism and the weakness of judiciary as key factors of obstacles to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. This paper, additionally, highlights the role of the Guanxi and the antagonism of court toward arbitration institution to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. Third, this study provides the recent developments of Supreme People's Court(SPC)'s rules to narrow down the gap between the practices of international arbitration and those of People's Republic of China. The Implications of this study are as follows. First, it is desirable for foreign investors to appoint the CIETAC or BAC as the arbitration commission in China. Second, the local competent attorney is the best choice to solve the respondent's insolvency in China. Third, foreign investors is required to monitor the provisions on the electronic instruments such as EDI and Email in Chinese law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.121-150
• /
• 2006

Under the New York Convention, parties can petition the courts of the United States to confirm foreign arbitral awards. Although there is no definition in the Convention for 'non-domestic' awards, in the United States, federal and state courts read the Convention broadly and interpret this as permitting the enforcing authority to supply its own definition of 'non-domestic' in conformity with its own domestic law. There are a number of federal cases on this point. The court preferred this broad construction of 'non-domestic' awards because it comported with the intended purpose of the Convention, which was entered into to encourage the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. This means that in applying the New York Convention, U.S. courts have responded to the underlying spirit rather than the technical letter of the Convention. In brief, the New York Convention has much broader application in the United States. It is applicable not only to awards rendered outside of the United States, but also to non-domestic awards rendered within United States. As this article suggests, the general attitude towards foreign awards is more pro-enforcement in the United States, whether the award is rendered in favor of the American party or in favor of the foreign party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.87-105
• /
• 2015

Intellectual property law is slowly fighting to keep pace with the rapid growth of the fashion industry. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, even in the US and other top fashion nations, forcing designers and fashion companies to rely on their trademarks to protect their work. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems as witnessed in a recent Christian Louboutin case, leading the parties to resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution(ODR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, are increasingly emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry (CFDA in the US case) should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members, both fashion designers and corporations alike, can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem In particular, for the US fashion industry, the ongoing Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act(IDPPPA) anti-counterfeit legislation could have caused a chilling effect against innovation. New designers with no name and less resources who could normally flourish producing inspired-by designs may find themselves subject to copyright infringement legislation since the IDPPPA may expand the protection of established designers and brands with more resources. This fear and its implication could be solved by the fashion industry itself since fashion experts know best how to handle these fast-paced issues arising in the field. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to protecting innovation within fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an ADR process. This can mitigate the uncertainty created by the IDPPPA or any other legislation from elsewhere, which could result in a shying away from experimentation with inspired-by designs.