• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.93-120
• /
• 2010

In 1978, Chinese reform and opening caused a big changes in Chinese labor relationship. Through reforming and opening, China gave up part of state ownership system and group ownership system, permitted private ownership system, and also opened the way for capitalists to ride again. Since China was established, the labor relationship ceased for 30 years has been appeared. However because the top priority aim of China's reform was economic growth, the protection of the rights and interests of labor was pushed back on the policy priority list. China takes foreign capitals based on cheap labor force quickly and China come up the worldwide plants. Since reformed, China keeps an economic growth rate of 9.7% annually for 30years. This economic growth is based on labor's sacrifice. However, Chinese fast economic growth causes side effects such as increasement of the gap between the wealthy and the poor, increasement of unbalanced development between regions, and the increasement of conflict between labor and management. Especially, according to changes in labors' level of consciousness, the labors recognized that their rights and interests are exploited by employers. Therefore, the labor dispute is continuously increasing. Chinese government changes their policy from the policy focusing on enterprise development to the policy protecting labor's rights and interests. In order to protect labor's rights and interests, China conducts labor contract law and labor dispute conciliation arbitration law in 2008. This kind of changes in Chinese labor environment affect a lot to Korean companies which already entered into China or are willing to enter. According to studying on present situation and resolution system in Chinese labor dispute, this paper suggests the proper countermeasure related to labor dispute of Korean companies which entered in China. First, the success rate of labor dispute conciliation by enterprise labor dispute conciliation committee is around 20% during recent several years and the success rate by year is in decline. Therefore, when labor dispute is occurred, our companies which entered into China better use other labor dispute methods such as negotiation and arbitration than conciliation in order to settle a conflict. Second, from the Korean enterprises entered in China point of view, there exists a problem not to sue except special cases which provided in the law even though they are dissatisfied with arbitrate judgment. Thus, when labor dispute occurred, Korean enterprises try to do best to settle the dispute through negotiation. However, in case of that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, they have to attend in the arbitration as if it is a last chance. Third, Korean enterprises keep in mind that dispute handling procedures between labor union and users or between labor group and users are different, and then deal with separately. Thus, dispute between labor and users have to follow arbitrate procedures as a necessary procedure, but in case of dispute related to group contract, namely dispute against labor union, labor dispute can be settled by arbitrate or suit, so after figuring out the situation exactly, it is necessary to select more advantageous way in order to settle the dispute. Moreover, in case of the dispute between labor union, they have to keep in mind that conciliation procedures cannot be used.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

국제상사중재는 <국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약>을 적용하는 중요한 영역이고 본 협약이 국제 통일법적인 역할을 발휘하는데 중요한 지원을 제공하고 있습니다. 중국국제 경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)는 협약을 가장 많이 적용하여 중재사건을 해결하는 중재위원회이다. 중재재판소는 체약국 법원과 마찬가지로 협약내용을 정확하게 이해하고 정확하게 적용함으로써 사건재판의 질을 제고하고 판결의 공신력을 강화한다. 하지만 중재재판소의 민간성과 독립성으로 인하여 재판소가 협약을 적용하는 법률기초는 소재국 국내 중재법, 중재절차 및 국제중재관례이고, 소재국이 협약을 이행함에 있어서의 국제조약의무가 아니다. 협약과 중국 계약법은 CIETAC 중재재판소가 주요하게 적용하는 법률이다. 중국 계약법 규정에는 협약 제75조, 76조의 내용에 해당하는 차액배상제도가 존재하지 않기 때문에, 판사와 중재재판소는 손해배상금을 확정함에 있어서 보다 많은 자유재량권을 가지므로 협약을 적용하는 것과 중국 계약법을 적용하는 것은 당사자에게 서로 다른 영향을 일으킨다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.523-541
• /
• 2016

According to Chinese Arbitration Law, combination of mediation with arbitration means that in the process of arbitration, arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case they are handling, provided both parties agree to do so. If mediation succeeds and the parties reach a settlement agreement, the arbitrators may render a consent award or a written mediation statement in accordance with the contents of the settlement agreement. If mediation fails, the arbitration proceedings will be resumed until the case is concluded by making of an arbitral award. There is no formal name of this system in China, it is called "combination of mediation with arbitration", "mediation in arbitration process" or "arbitration-mediation", the author of this thesis select "arbitration-mediation" and make it simply as "Arb-Med". This thesis concentrates on three issues that arbitrators and the parties have to clarify and pay attention to once they choose to use Arb-Med. The first part is about the 'waivable problems', include waive the right to challenge a arbitrator who act as a mediator at the same time with parties' approval, as well as the question about the waiver of the arbitrator's duty to disclose confidential information obtained during mediation. The second part is 'public policy in Arb-Med', introduces the concept of public policy, the bias may arise the complaint about public policy, and the due procedure problem. And the last part is about the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, especially about the award including some contents which has relation to third party's interests.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2011

In the past, Chinese arbitral system and Chinese arbitral associations were avoided by international society due to the cases which Chinese court rejected the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on rural protection. Especially Chinese court adjudicated to reject the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by interpreting public policy broadly. The abuse of public policy by court threats the existence of commercial arbitration system. Under this awareness, the author figured out Chinese court shows what kind of attitude about public policy of Chinese court in the present through analyzing the cases about rejection of enforcement in Chinese arbitral awards in order to analyze whether Chinese court still maintain the negative attitude like past or there exist changes with public policy which is one of the rejection reasons of recognition and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards as the central figure. Chinese court behaved in an uncooperative attitude about arbitral awards like that it reached a verdict to reject the enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy about several foreign arbitral awards at the beginning stage of establishing arbitration law. However, the situation of abuse in public policy was improved a lot by Chinese prime court which enforces pre-inspection system about judgment of rejection of enforcement in arbitral awards. So, there is no case about rejecting the approval and enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy by Chinese court except Yongning Co. case. Moreover, Chinese court got the trust and support from other countries through reinforcement of applied standard. However, Chinese court had been expressed concern from international society because they highly applied public policy and rejected to enforce arbitral awards in the recent case of Yongning Co.. Therefore, this study examined whether it is appropriate to apply public policy of Chinese court in the case of Yongning Co., and then I concluded that. Although Yongning Co. case is the first case which Chinese prime court agrees with public policy by reason of rejection of approval and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that Chinese court has fundamental change in basic attitude and position about the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chinese court keeps the cautious uses of public policy in legal judgment of foreign arbitral awards and it looks like implementing the obligation in regulation of New York Convention sincerely.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.53-70
• /
• 2019

This study analyzed some cases of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commision (CIETAC) related to the application of the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). As a contracting party of the CISG, China has accumulated a considerable amount of experience in applying CISG through commercial arbitrations. This study sought to understand how CISG is operated in commercial arbitration in China. By analyzing actual cases in China, Korean commercial arbitration can avoid mistakes and further improve. This study of Chinese cases will give some useful information for Korean companies. As defined by the CISG, the applicability can be divided into direct application and indirect application. When China joined the CISG, it made a reservation out of Article 1(1)(b). Korea and China are contracting parties to CISG and CISG is, therefore, directly applied. It is beneficial for Korea to understand how CIETAC is indirectly applied in China then. Some of the results of this study are as follows: First, CIETAC made a correct judgment most of the time on the direct application of CISG. However, there were mistakes in the judgment of the nationality of the parties in a few cases. The parties must clearly define applicable laws when entering into a contract. Secondly, the 2012 "CIETAC Arbitration Rules" was revised so that the "party autonomy" was introduced into Chinese commercial arbitration concerning indirect application. Therefore, the principle of autonomy of the parties was not fully recognized in the past judgments. Instead, the domestic law of China was applied in accordance with the reservation of Article 1(1)(b). Thirdly, China did not explain the application of CISG in Hong Kong, which led to ambiguity in concerned countries. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the status of CISG in Hong Kong. In addition, Korean companies should clearly define the applicable laws when dealing with Hong Kong companies.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2004

The problems on application for custody in CIETAC Arbitration Rule are examined in this paper. First, The issue of jurisdiction for application for custody is arisen from the expansion of material jurisdiction of CIETAC. Until 1998, CIETAC had a jurisdiction only for the cases involving foreigners, but now, it has a jurisdiction not only for the cases involving foreigners but also for domestic cases. In the cases of arbitrating disputes involving foreigners, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an intermediate people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. But in the cases of arbitrating domestic disputes, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an ground-level people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. Therefore, "People's court" in article 23 of CIETAC Arbitration Rule includes both intermediate people's court and ground-level people's court in its meaning. Second, in the cases that the party concerned submits arbitration to CIETAC, it is not permitted for the party to ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. But there still can be the urgent cases that interests of the party concerned are at stake, and legitimate rights and interests of the party concerned may be damaged beyond remedy, if no application for custody of property is filed immediately. In that cases, even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Therefore, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. When revising laws and rules, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. When arbitration tribunal decides it, the procedural provisions executing it must be provided. It is also required that China permit to apply preservation of evidence as well as custody of property before submitting an arbitration. It is also strongly recommended that China permit custody of property or preservation of evidence even in the cases that an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• 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.