• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.123-138
• /
• 2013

The surge of cross border trade and transactions has seen international arbitration fast emerging as the preferred mode of dispute resolution. This phenomenon is especially remarkable in the Asian region. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") aspires to contribute to this growth as one of the leading arbitral institutions. The objective of this article is to provide an insight into the key features of SIAC Rules. This article has been divided into two parts; the first part discusses how the SIAC Rules are helpful in building bridges in international arbitration between the common law and civil law systems. We have attempted to throw light on how the SIAC Rules may be tailored by the parties to bring about a harmonization in the common law and civil law practices in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. In the second part of the article, we discuss the two most popular procedures introduced in the SIAC Rules in 2010 i.e. 'Emergency Arbitration' and 'Expedited procedures'. The emergency arbitration provisions enable a party to obtain order(s)/award for urgent interim relief(s) upon commencement of arbitral proceedings but pending the constitution of the main Tribunal. The expedited Procedure provisions give parties the option of having their disputes determined in six (6) months from the date of the constitution of the tribunal.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2013

Recently, many international arbitration institutions have responded to the business requirements of their users and have revised their rules to enhance the time and cost efficiency. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) revised the international arbitration rule in 2011, introducing new arbitration mechanisms like the expedited procedure. Also other Asian arbitration institutions introduced the expedited procedure in their international arbitration rules. Now expedited procedures are regarded as a very attractive system in the field of international arbitration. Accordingly, this paper reviewed the expedited procedures of four Asian countries, including China(CIETAC), Hong Kong (HKIAC), Singapore(SIAC) and Korea(KCAB). The purpose of this study is to find out meaningful implications to improve the Korean system. Based on this review, some recommendations are suggested as follows. First, the scope of the expedited procedure has to be adjusted upward than the current 200 million won. Second, there should be a fee schedule only for the expedited procedure. Third, in case of small amount international disputes, written examination should be more used in the expedited procedure. Finally, KCAB should make strong efforts to improve the awareness and usage of the expedited procedure in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2014

These days, in line with the increase of opportunities in our country's firms to do transaction, large-scale M&A and investment with foreign firms incorporating arbitration clauses in the contracts have become general practice. Recently, Singapore has come to the fore as a place of arbitration and, particularly, Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) was assessed as the favored international arbitration institution uniquely in Asia at the 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, along with the ICC, LCIA, and AAA/ICDR. Therefore, the country's firms need to understand properly the international arbitration procedure of Singapore. This study examines the international arbitration system of Singapore, focusing on the arbitration procedure of the SIAC. The Center revised arbitration rules twice in 2010 and 2013, and established the Court of Arbitration of SIAC in April 2013 for the first time in Asia in pursuit of stricter neutrality and promptness. It further seeks to run the arbitration procedure fairly by selecting a third country's people as an arbitrator, while its arbitration expenses are cheaper than those of the ICC. The study believes that for the country's international arbitration institutions such as the KCAB to jump forward as a world-class international arbitration institution, the Korean government should render positive support to them, learning from Singapore which does not spare any political and financial assistance to cultivate international arbitration institutions. On the other hand, KCAB should also try hard to improve in the aspects of neutrality, fairness, and promptness and to be selected as a trustworthy international arbitration institution by firms in Asian countries.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.215-238
• /
• 2012

This paper is to review the interim measures of arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitration and to compare the emergency arbitrator systems of international arbitration institutions including the ICDR, SCC, SIAC, ACICA, and ICC. Most arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measures of protection. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 are regarded to contribute significantly to the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. A party that needs urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal may make an application for such measures. Major international arbitration institutions have their own rules and provisions for the emergency arbitrator system, which was set forth first by the ICRD in 2006. The application requirements for emergency arbitrators are almost the same. However, there are significant differences in details such as appointments and applications for challenging emergency arbitrators, the process and form of the emergency arbitrator's decision, etc. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider these differences for more desirable emergency arbitrator proceedings in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.99-128
• /
• 2014

Last year, Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center(SIDRC) was set up to facilitate and promote international arbitration in Korea. This study was focused on the revision of arbitration rules such as ICC, SIAC, HKIAC and JCAA. As a leading arbitration institution in the world, ICC has tried continuously to provide more efficient service to their client by adopting emergency arbitrator(EA) & multi party arbitration. Other three institutions also introduced almost same mechanism to compete each other. These two new system is very innovative in international arbitration. First of all, EA was designed to provide interim measure service to preserve or protect parties' right before the constitution of arbitral tribunal. Arbitration institutions and arbitral tribunals should be careful to decide these requests are legitimate or not because too hasty approval on joinder or consolidation without full consideration such as parties' intention or argument may issue another serious problem - setting aside an award rendered after joined or consolidated.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

In the case of multiple commerce contracts in commerce, as well as multiple contracts related to it, a solution for the merging of arbitration proceedings is necessary in order to ensure uniformity of dispute resolution. Since the arbitration proceedings are based on the parties' agreement, no merging of two or more arbitration proceedings may transpire unless all parties agree. Claims of merging in arbitration proceedings lead to problems such as lack of party autonomy, resulting from lack of consent of the parties to merging, and how to appoint an arbitrator in a multilateral arbitration proceeding. Many of the major arbitration bodies have recognized the significant benefits of the terms of consolidation, and have recently revised the Arbitration Rules to include or extend existing clauses to reflect the needs of the parties. This study introduces the merging provisions of several selected major arbitration rules, such as the ICC, Switzerland, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ACICA, and UNCITRAL rules, and looks at the main similarities and differences among the rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.115-133
• /
• 2022

This article examines the Practical Suggestions for Promoting of Virtual Hearings in International Arbitration. COVID-19 had an prompt and meaningful impact on the practice of international arbitration. Nevertheless arbitral institutions, arbitral tribunals, and other participants learned quickly how to deal with this new challenge. The use of virtual or online hearings has been gaining popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Either with the help of arbitral institutions or by themselves, the parties realized that the only way to safeguard a hearing at all was to run it virtually. In fact, hearings by video conference or other technical means seemed to be the magic solution. One of the leading arbitration institutions, i.e. the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris has amended its Arbitration Rules to accept the subjects of recent international arbitration practice. Other arbitral institutions have similarly amended their respective rules. Many recent and adaptable institutional arbitration rules, either expressly or implicitly, allow for hearings to be conducted remotely. The trend has already been set by the leading institutions as ICC, LCIA, ICSID, SCC SIAC, and many more will follow. In short, enthusiasts of virtual hearings even believe that virtual hearings are "the new normal".

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.