• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2013

There should be an arbitration agreement between concerned parties in order to resolve a dispute through arbitration. The arbitration procedures, including the selection of the arbitrator and the adjudicative rights of the arbitrator, are based on the arbitration agreement. In other words, the arbitration procedure and adjudication can be carried out within the boundaries of the arbitration agreement. Traditionally, the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement has been acknowledged in order to emphasize its importance and to clearly separate it from the contract. Today, when the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement is well established, overemphasizing this separability could hamper its effectiveness and the autonomy of the parties. Moreover, arbitration agreements in the past were required to be written, clarifying the existence of the agreement and determining the scope of its validity. Further, an arbitration agreement was considered as narrowly as possible. However, since arbitration has become a generalized resolution for disputes, the formal or content requirements should be reconsidered. In terms of validity, the subjective and objective scope should necessarily be extended as a means to resolve disputes related to an arbitration agreement and reduce the resolution cost and duration. Under this perspective, the arbitration theory should now focus on arbitration agreements rather than the place of arbitration. We should break from the nationalistic view, which understands that the arbitration system is a part of the national legal system and that arbitration is allowed solely by permission of the nation. Instead, we should extensively reinterpret the subject of arbitration agreement and its range of effects so that disputes can be resolved between the concerned parties under a single procedure and norm, a necessary step forward. Moreover, in spite of the positive contribution and role of the New York Convention toward the establishment and development of the international arbitration system, there should be an effort to overcome its deterioration. As mentioned in the recommendations regarding the interpretation of the arbitration agreement in the New York Convention in 2006, we should begin by striving to match the Convention as a means of interpretation with the changes of the twenty-first century. Ultimately, we should meet the demands of the new era through amendments to the Convention.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2006

This writing is for the purpose of investigating the specific character and problem point of China arbitration system which has near 90 years history and overviewing the drift of system improvement which happens recently. The arbitration system of China which traditionally does not acknowledge ad hoc arbitration, unlike most of the other nations that employ The UNCITRAL model law and make it their own legislation, is restrictive to the parties concerned principle of private autonomy considerably. Also the independence of arbitration is delicate, because of a civil characteristic weakness of the arbitral institutions and the intervention of the courts on the arbitration procedure and award. The dual system of domestic and international arbitration which maintains after enforcement of 1994 arbitration law is often to be a primary factor interrupting the development of Chinese arbitration system and making it vulnerable to challenges. The system improvement demand of the recent time reflects this point and makes the arbitration system of China to a international standard rather than now, so it is a desirable direction for China to be as the member of the world economy to be globalization.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.137-163
• /
• 2018

Efficiency in the arbitration proceedings and finality of arbitral awards have been key attractive features of arbitration. While finality of awards is due to the fact that there is no appeals mechanism in arbitration, other recourses that are available against arbitral awards threaten the integrity of finality of arbitral awards. This article examines some of these recourses, such as, setting aside of arbitral awards pursuant to the UNCITRAL Model Law, scrutiny of draft awards by arbitration institutions, and annulment proceedings of ICSID Convention awards and discusses the implications of these measures in relation to assuring finality of arbitral awards in international commercial and investment arbitration cases. In order to more effectively respect the disputing parties' autonomy in choosing arbitration, and also to give as much deference to arbitral tribunals' decisions and their discretion in reaching their decisions, it is proposed that an official appellate mechanism would be preferred over the undermining of finality of arbitral awards that have been taking place through the currently available exclusive recourses against arbitral awards.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2018

As the disputes in the investment and civil/commercial sectors of China and Taiwan have increased due to active cross-strait economic exchanges, the Chinese government is addressing cross-strait disputes through various dispute resolution methods. In recent years, the Arbitration Center Across the Straits (ACAS) has been established to resolve disputes between cross-strait parties, while ACAS Arbitration Rules have been enacted and enforced. ACAS Arbitration Rules are prepared by referring to the Arbitration Act of China and Taiwan, the relevant provisions and practices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules and the cross-strait practical affairs of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, and the cross-strait practical affairs giving consideration to the specificity of the cross-strait relationship and the characteristics of economic and trade disputes. Therefore, this paper has compared the features and main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules with those of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. This refers to arbitration proceedings such as form and effect of arbitration agreement, decision of place of arbitration, and organization of arbitral tribunal; the provision of consolidation of multiple contracts and arbitration, and the provision of joinder of arbitration parties, which are implementing the "principle of party autonomy" with streamlining arbitration proceedings and reducing costs; "common, simple, and small sum arbitration proceedings which require shorter arbitration proceedings depending on the size of the arbitration object; and regulations on the "interconnection of mediation and conciliation" which is characteristic of China's arbitration system. Based on the above-mentioned main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules in China, there are some implications to be considered in the establishment of the Arbitration Rules of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission which will be applied to solve commercial and investment disputes arising from the Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation process, suggesting implications such as the need for the rapid composition and operation of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission, requirements for selecting arbitrators, expansion of the object of arbitration, specification of concreteness in deciding the place of arbitration, need to create a variety of arbitration proceedings, and application plan of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) or Third Power Arbitration Agency.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.183-232
• /
• 1999

The legislative body of The People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress, enacted the first arbitration act in China's history on August 31st, 1994, which took effect on September 1, 1995. The problems revealed through a comparison of China's Arbitration Act with the UNCITRAL model arbitration law were studied as well as the enacting process, background, status and system, important contents, problems of Chaina's Arbitration Act, and the differences between the old arbitration regulations and the new arbitration act. These are all discussed in this paper. The Arbitration Act is the basic act ruling over china's arbitration system: it unified the previously confusing laws and regulations relevant to the arbitration system, and the act brings out fundamental changes in China's domestic arbitration to the level of international arbitration standards. It is possible to view this act as a cornerstone in China's arbitration system. But, as discussed in this paper, there are still a lot of problems with the new act and only a few of the merits which the UNCITRAL model arbitration law has. First, under China's Arbitration Act, parties enjoy autonomy to some degree, but the range of party autonomy, compared to that of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, is too narrow. Second, because China's Arbitration Act didn't explicitly provide issues which can give rise to debate, a degree of confusion in its interpretation still remains. Third, China's Arbitration Act's treatment of some important principles was careless. Fourth, in some sections, China's Arbitration Act is less reasonable than the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. These problems must be resolved in order to develop China's arbitration system. The best way of resolving these problems for China is to adopt the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. But it is difficult to expect that China will accept this approach, because of the present arbitration circumstances in China. Although it is difficult to accept all the contents of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, China's legislators and practitioners must consider the problems mentioned in this paper.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.33-54
• /
• 2008

The KCAB enacted their new international arbitration rules(the KCAB rules) in 2007 wheres The CIETAC revised their arbitration rules(the CIETAC new rules) in 2005. This article investigates some practical problems on both rules respectively and helps trading companies to proceed arbitration by these rules. This study finds some problems as follows. There are the following problems in KCAB rules. First, application fee is too expensive fee. So KCAB should cut down their application fee. Second, if there is no agreement on number of arbitrators, the arbitration is processed by sole arbitrator. But it is very difficult for sole arbitrator to process international arbitration due to characteristics of international arbitration such as complexity of case and a large sum of claim. Third, a period of selection of arbitrator is long. In view of developing of communication means, this period is needed more short. In the meantimes, there are the following problems in CIETAC rules. First, though the CIETAC new rules enlarges the right of parties autonomy such as selection of arbitration rules or revise of it, China arbitration Act stipulates a institute arbitration which restrict partie's autonomy. Second, if there is no agreement on arbitrators, the CIETAC appoints chair of tribural in three arbitrators ion or sole arbitrators. is processed by sole arbitrator. Third, a draft of arbitral award is checked by the CIETAC in advance. Especially, the two latter problems is possible for foreigners to have doubts of fairness of CIETAC arbitration. Becuase the CIETAC is not a complete independent private institution. Consequently, I suggest that Korean trading companies should examine problems of these two arbitration rules carefully, and select a most appropriate rules for settlement of their disputes with Chines companies.