• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-70
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and discussions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules that have been discussed and considered by the Working Group. At its thirty-ninth session (New York, 19 June-7 July 2006), the Commission agreed that, in respect of future work of the Working Group, priority be given to a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976). At its forty-fifth session (Vienna, 11-15 September 2006), the Working Group undertook to identify areas where a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules might be useful. At that session, it was considered that the focus of the revision should be on updating the Rules to meet changes that had taken place over the last thirty years in arbitral practice. The largely amended provisions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are as follows : Notice of arbitration and response to the notice of arbitration (Article 3), Designating and appointing authorities (Article 4 bis), November of arbitrators (Article 5), Appointment of arbitrations (Article 6), Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration (Article 7 bis), Challenge of arbitrators (Article 9), Replacement of an arbitrator (Article 13), Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Article 21), Interim measures (Article 26), Form and effect of the award (Article 32), and Liability of arbitrators (Proposed additional provisions). There are some differences between the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In order to jnternationalize the Korea's commercial arbitration system, it is desirable that the main articles of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should be admitted to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In conclusion, the Commission was generally of the view of any revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should not alter the structure of the text, its spirit, its drafting style, and should respect the flexibility of the text rather than make it more complex. The Working Group agreed that harmonizing the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law should not be automatic but rather considered only where appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2008

At its thirty-ninth session(New York, 19 June - 7 July 2006), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(hereinafter referred to as the Commission) agreed to give priority to the topic of revising the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. From the forty-fifth through the forty-seventh session, the Working Group checked various issues based on the draft revised version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules prepared by the Secretariat. At its forty-eighth session, the Working Group is going to finish its first reading of articles 38 to 41 of the draft revised version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and to commence its second reading of the draft revised version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Korea is keen on enticing foreign direct investment into its territory. From the 1960s, Korea has concluded more than 80 BITs. Korea is making efforts to conclude FTAs with its trading partners. As of January, 2008, 3 FTAs have taken into effect with respect to Korea. According to provisions on dispute settlement found in such BITs and FTAs involving Korea, the Rules can be chosen for Investor-State Arbitration. Furthermore, the Rules is followed by the arbitration rules for domestic and international arbitrations administered by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. If the Commission adopts the revised version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the Rules will be able to give impact on the arbitration law and practice around the world of arbitration. That is the reason why we should keep attention to the development of the deliberations of the Working Group.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

In 2006, the UNCITRAL Working Group II started a new project on the revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 1976. Ever since that time, 9 sessions of the Working Group II were devoted to the discussions on such topic. The Arbitration Rules has been acknowledged to be used for settling international disputes involving various disputing parties. In recent years, many treaty-based arbitrations have been subject to the Arbitration Rules. This article focuses on the discussions made in the 52nd session of the Working Group II where the third reading of the revised draft of the Arbitration Rules was completed except for a few provisions. Among the draft rules, the delegations were hardly able to reach an agreement with regard to Articles 2(2), 34(2), 41(3), (4), and (6). It is expected that those provisions would be agreed in the coming 43rd plenary session of the UNCITRAL. The use of the Arbitration Rules is dependent on the agreement by the disputing parties. It is not like the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration which was adopted in Korean legal system in 1999. However, the proper functioning of arbitration rules is essential for the efficient and successful operation of the arbitration system in a particular country. That is the reason why we should keep close attention on the discussions of the UNCITRAL with regard to the revision of the Arbitration Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.73-106
• /
• 2004

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Working Group began its deliberations on the topic of interim measures of protection at its thirty-second session (Vienna, 21-30 March 2000), when the Working Group expressed general support for a legal regime governing enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by the arbitral tribunal. Also the Working Group took a preliminary analysis of whether there was a need for a uniform rule on court-ordered interim measures of protection in support of arbitration. The Working Group agreed, at its thirty-third session (Vienna, 20 November-1 December 2000), that the proposed new article to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration on enforcement of interim measures of protection (tentatively numbered article 17 bis) should include an obligation on courts to enforce interim measures if prescribed conditions were met. At its thirty-fourth session (New York, 21 May-1 Jun 2001), in addition to continuing its review of draft article 17 bis, the Working Group proceeded to consider a text revising article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which defined the scope of an arbitral tribunal's power to order interim measures and included an additional provision on the granting of interim measures on an ex parte basis. Discussions in relation to revised drafts of article 17 and 17 bis of the UNCITRAL Model Law have continued at the fortieth session ( New York, 23-27 February 2004). Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect to the subject matter of the dispute. However it may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.133-152
• /
• 2013

Recently, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has made progress toward resolving low value, high volume disputes in international e-commerce. At the Working Group's 26th session, two draft procedural rules were addressed. The first discussed the draft of Article 9, entitled "Decision by a neutral party." This is based on the suggestion in 26th session to have a "two track" system of ODR, one including negotiation, facilitated settlement, and arbitration phrases, and the other not including an arbitration phase. The second draft procedural rule, draft Article 10, regards the language of proceedings. In most cases of international e-commerce, the decision of language of an ODR proceeding is a matter of importance, for the language parties could differ from each other. This paper examines several implications of UNCITRAL for Korea, which has unstable ODR system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2022

The modern arbitration practice recognises the need for a faster and simplified procedural framework for international disputes with fairly low amounts at stake. This has driven several institutions to expand their offer of procedural guidelines with a simplified set of rules that would fit this purpose. Expedited arbitration is increasingly used by parties and is growing in popularity. The basic idea behind establishing expedited arbitration rules is to create the possibility for the parties to a dispute to agree on a simplified and streamlined procedure and to have an arbitration award issued within a short period. The associated cost savings for the parties is another benefit. The importance of developing rules for expedited dispute resolution has recently also been considered by the UNCITRAL Working Group II, in light of the "increasing demand to resolve simple, low-value cases by arbitration" and "the lack of international mechanisms cope with such disputes." As a result, the UNCITRAL 2021 Expedited Arbitration Rules (UNCITRAL EAR) took effect on September 19, 2021. The EAR was adopted by the Commission on 21 July 2021 and, next to UNCITRAL's well-known instruments like the Arbitration Rules (UAR) and the Model Law, represent another chapter in the Commission's impactful work in the field of international arbitration. Overall, the UNCITRAL EAR has great potential to meet the need for more flexible and efficient arbitration proceedings, primarily because they provide the tribunal with strong managerial powers while still leaving room for consultation with the parties. However, parties must remember that not all disputes may be suitable for expedited arbitration, and disputes that are complex or have the possibility of being joint or consolidated may not benefit from simplified procedures and tight deadlines. This article will outline the core features and characteristics of the UNCITRAL EAR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.53-89
• /
• 2006

At its thirty-second session(Vienna, 17 May-4 June 1999), the UNCITRAL decided that the priority items for the Working Group(Arbitration and Conciliation) should include enforceability of interim measures and the requirement of written (on for the arbitration agreement. The Working Group, at its forty-third session(Vienna, 3-7 October 2005), it had undertaken a detailed review of the text of the revised article 17 of UNCTTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and it had resumed discussions on a draft model legislative provision revising article 7, paragraph (2) of UNCITRAL Model Law. The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and issues of the draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders, and on the form of arbitration agreement which the Working Group discussed and adopted at its forth-fourth session(New York, 23-27 January 2006). The draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders are composed of the following provisions : Article 17-power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures; article 17 bis-conditions for granting interim measures; article 17 ter-applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders; article 17 quater-specific regime for preliminary orders; article 17 quinquies- modification, suspension, termination; article 17 sexies-provision of security; article 17 septies-disclosure; article 17 octies-costs and damages; article 17 novies recognition and enforcements; article 17 decies-grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement; article 17 undecies-court-ordered interim measures. There are the following issues in the draft legislative provisions on interim measures and preliminary orders : form of issuance of an interim measures in article 17(2); conditions for granting interim measures in article 17 bis; purpose, function and legal regime of preliminary orders in article 17 ter; obligation of arbitral tribunal to give notice, and non-enforceability of preliminary orders in article 17 quater; burden of proof, interplay between article 17 decies and article 34, and decision on the recognition and enforcement of the interim measures in article 17 decies; placement of article 17 undecies; amendment of scope exception of application in article 1(2). The draft legislative provisions on the form of arbitration agreement are composed of the following provisions : article 7(1) definition of arbitration agreement; article 7(2) arbitration agreement in writing; article 7(3) arbitration agreement if its terms(content) are (is) recorded in any form; article 7(4) arbitration agreement by an electronic communication; article 7(5) arbitration agreement in an exchange of statements of claim and defence; article 7(6) reference to any document containing an arbitration clause. There are the following issues in the draft legislative provisions on the form of arbitration agreement : arbitration agreement in writing in article 7(2); terms or contents of arbitration agreement in article 7(3); arbitration agreement by electronic communication in article 7(4); existence of arbitration agreement in article 7(5); reference to any document containing an arbitration clause in article 7(6); the alternative proposal on article 7; amendment to article 35(2).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2000

At its thirty-second session in 1999, the UNCITRAL had before it the requested note entitled "Possible future work in the area of international commercial arbitration." After concluding the discussion on its future work in the area of international commercial arbitration, it was agreed that the priority items for the working group should be conciliation, requirement of written form for the arbitration and enforceability of interim measures of protection. the Commission entrusted the work to the Working Group on Arbitration which held its thirty-second session at Vienna from 20 to 31 March 2000. The Working Group discussed agenda item 3 on the basis of the report of Secretary General entitled "Possible uniform rules on certain issues concerning settlement of commercial disputes : conciliation, interim measures of protection, written form for arbitration agreement." At its thirty-three session in 2000, the UNCITRAL had before it the report of Secretary General on agenda item 3 discussed by the Working Group. The Working Group discussed the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; (1) Admissibility of certain evidence in subsequent judicial or arbitral proceedings ; (2) Role of conciliatior in arbitration or court proceedings ; (3) Enforceability of settlement agreements reached in conciliation proceedings ; (4) Other possible items for harmonized treatment : a) Admissibility or desirability of conciliation by arbitrators b) Effect of an agreement to conciliate on judicial or arbitral proceedings c) Effect of conciliation on the running of limitation period d) Communication between the conciliator and parties ; disclosure of information e) Role of conciliator. It was generally considered that decisions as to the form of the text to be prepared should be made at a later stage when the substance of prepared solutions would become clearer. However, it was noted that model legislative provisions seemed to be appropriate form for a number of matters proposed to be discussed in the area conciliation. There was general support in the Working Group for the proposition to perpare a legislative regime governing the enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by arbitral tribunals. It was generally considered that legislative regime should apply to enforcement of interim measures issued in arbitration taking place in State where enforcement was sought as well as outside that State. It was generally observed that there was a need for provisions which conformed to current practice in international trade with regard to requirements of written form for arbitration agreement. The view was adopted by the Working Group that the objective of ensuring a uniform interpretation of the form requirement that responded to the needs of international trade could be achieved by : preparing a model legislative provision clarifying, for avoidance of doubt, the scope of article 7(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration : and adopting a declaration, resolution or statement addressing the interpretation of the New York Convention that would reflect a broad understanding of the form requirement. There was general agreement in the Working Group that, in order to promote the use of electronic commerce for international trade and leave the parties free to agree to the use of arbitration in the electronic commerce sphere, article II(2) of the New York Convention should be interpreted to cover the use of electronic means of communication as defined un article 2 of the Model Law on Electronic Commerce and that it required no amendment to do that. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider to the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues concerning conciliation and arbitration proceedings, possibly indicating whether future work should be towards a legislative text or non-legislative text.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.181-215
• /
• 2001

The thirty-fourth session of UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration was held in New York. Among the topics discussed at the session, many delegations agreed to reform the article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in light of the development of electronic commerce. As for the article 2(2) of the New York Convention, it was agreed to reflect the changes of the article 7 not in the form of a treaty amendment but in the form of an interpretative statement. The topic as to provisional measures has been found so difficult to reach an agreement that most of its texts submitted by the secretariat were left untouched for the lack of time. However, most provisions of the legislative texts on conciliation were dealt with by delegations. The next session is to be held in Vienna. While the Korean Arbitration Act of 1966 was fully amended in 1999, it seems interesting to look at the development in which the arbitration community of the world has already begun discussing the new dimension of the law and practice of international commercial arbitration. It may be considered early to start a new project of reforming the Korean Arbitration Act at this time when only three years passed after it was fully amended. It is, however, worthwhile to remember that some progressive efforts were aborted in amending the Arbitration Act of 1966. One of them is about the same issue on the insertion of some provisions on the enforcement of interim measures of protection to which the priority is given by the Working Group. It seems fair to say that it would not be dangerous to follow the developments and to adapt ourselves to such trends shown in the session. In Korea, the words “arbitration” and “conciliation” are misleadingly interchanged although these two words should be differentiated from each other in the sense of third-party binding decision. It is self-evident from the Korean Arbitration Act and judicial decisions that arbitral awards bind the disputing parties and are to be treated as final judgements by the competent courts. It is, however, not uncommon to find that the word “arbitration” is misinterpreted as having the same meaning of the word “conciliation”. One of the reasons for the confusion is that many legislations in Korea provide for conciliation as having the meaning of arbitration and vice versa. It may be probable that the proposed legislative texts on conciliation could be a kind of useful method to prevent such confusion from being uncontrollable. It is, therefore, necessary that the legislative texts should be introduced into Korea as a legislation on conciliation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

Cross-border consumer disputes are on the increase as cross-border trade between consumers and businesses continues to grow. Cross-border consumer disputes are difficult to solve, because there are different languages, laws and institutions between the parties. These consumer disputes can be solved more easily by Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in comparison with utilizing court processes. ODR is a branch of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. In this respect it is often seen as being the online equivalent of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). On 18 June 2013, the new legislation on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution has been published - the "Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Consumer ODR". The new legislation on ADR and ODR will allow consumers and traders to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost and simple way. The United Nations working group for online dispute resolution of cross-border electronic commerce transactions (UNCITRAL Working Group III) has been underway since 2010 to continue its work on procedural rules for ODR.