• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.109-129
• /
• 2011

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international sports has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because the form of sports dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem. The Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) as the settlement of sports dispute is regarded as the one of effective dispute resolution method and merits notice. The Korean Sports Arbitration Committee has been established for dispute resolution between athletes and the clubs or alike. Now, We must review and complements the rules of the Korean Sports Arbitration Committee in order to be a representative system of domestic sports dispute arbitration that settle the sports dispute practically and efficiently.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

First, the purpose of this research is to review the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations in Korea to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the near future. Second, this research tries to look for alternative solutions to dispute resolutions according to these regulations. Third, this research pursues to enhance the effectiveness of business deals by providing efficient and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for e-commerce business. Furthermore, this study evaluates the definition of global e-commerce by comparing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Through analyzing the domestic ODR system and ADR system, this research could boost the employment of settlements in small-sized disputes through easy and convenient consumer access to both ODR and ADR procedures. The enhancement of the competitiveness of Korean companies in the global market is estimated to take place as a result. This research is estimated to provide benefits to our businesses both domestically and internationally by using ODR regulations and ADR methods. Moreover, this research is anticipated to verify usefulness in terms of consumer protection by advancing consumers' access to dispute solution authorities locally and abroad.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.53-80
• /
• 2014

This article focuses on the Active Plan for Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) in financial Dispute. The financial consumers of Korea had suffered greatly from the IMF in 1997 and the global financial crisis in 2008, which also increased financial conflicts significantly. In particular, active financial transaction, due to the development of computer and financial techniques causes frequent consumer financial conflicts. It is beneficial to settle them for judicial economy through an alternative conflict arbitration system instead of lawsuit at the court. Many advanced countries settle financial conflicts through various ADR in their numerous financial conflicts. In the settlement of financial conflict, the ADR system, covering mediation and arbitration, is useful and appropriate. Each governmental institution has various conflict settlement organizations, and it is necessary to operate them effectively. In order to settle financial conflicts properly, it is necessary to study law on financial consumer protection, and it is also necessary to understand practical custom and practical knowledge and to systematize them. Further, it is important to manage financial conflict-related data, to accumulate professional experiences, and to prepare a financial conflict settlement system in order to introduce financial education earlier to the whole nation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.219-251
• /
• 2006

As the scale of electronic commerce increases more and more, disputes in the electronic commerce also happen more frequently. As the development of electronic commerce is difficult without smooth settlement of dispute, the pursue of smooth settlement of dispute is very important. Regarding smooth settlement of dispute, the way of dispute settlement through Online Dispute Resolution(ODR) is pursued positively nowadays. However the responsibility of related parties still remains to complete such system. This paper divides related parties into the parties(seller, buyer), ODR providers, the neutral dispute resolver, and the governments. Later this paper examines the responsibility of related parties. As related parties complete their own responsibility, electronic commerce may develop more and more. Furthermore through the development of electronic commerce all nations will enjoy mutual benefit.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• 제44권2호
• /
• pp.147-160
• /
• 2022

SRFC (Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission) requested to the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) an advisory opinion relating to the IUU (Illegl, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing (Case No-21 of the ITLOS). Since, in the UNCLOS, there is no article authorizing the jurisdiction of the ITLOS full court's Advisory opinion, so various scholarly opinion wad divided. But ITLOS delivered its Advisory opinion confirming its jurisdictional competence over the Advisory proceedings with its legal opinion about the IUU issues. It opens new possibility of the alternative dispute settlement mechanism of the ITLOS through the advisory procedures. In reality, there has been a view that ICJ (International Court of Justice) could take the part of a kind of dispute settlement through its Advisory procedures. But the advisory procedures of the ITLOS, with no definite clause in UNCLOS about the advisory procedures, which provides more allowances for the function of advisory opinion as the alternative dispute settlement mechanism. ITLOS accepted the requests of the advisory opinion by the State parties through international organization or themselves directly. And the advisory opinion of the ITLOS aims the interpretation and application into the special issues-specially IUU fishing in Case No. 21 of the ITLOS-. Those factors could enable more enhanced role of the ITLOS as an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. But those possibility has contain risk of excessive and unlimited advisory role of the ITLOS. So it is important to focus on the restriction on the role of the State parties in the request of the advisory opinion to the ITLOS. In this regard it is meaningful that the ITLOS has suggested a kind of legal standing in the advisory procedures in that only coastal States could request the Advisory opinion about the IUU in their EEZ. Furthermore the discretionary power of the ITLOS in the Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal could curtail the abuse of the Advisory opinion initiated by the States parties of the UNCLOS. Under this framework, Advisory opinion could broaden more alternative option to the disputes between State parties of the UNCLOS in that after being delivered detailed interpretation of the UNCLOS about the specific issues, States parties could devote themselves to searching for flexible solution for the disputes between State parties. It could obtain legal explanation about the dispute under the Article 297 and Article 298 by detouring the jurisdiction limits through advisory procedures.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권2호
• /
• pp.177-189
• /
• 2020

The dispute settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is in great peril. The Appellate Body has ceased to function last December as the United States has blocked the appointment of new Appellate Body members since 2017. The focus of this study is on the examination of US's discontent on the Appellate Body and various efforts to reform the Appellate Body. In a recent report, the US Trade Representative raises its concerns on the Appellate Body including 90 days mandatory deadline, transitional rules for outgoing Appellate Body members, scope of appeal, advisory opinions, precedent, recommendation, and overreach without offering any viable solutions. Some of WTO members and experts proposed several Appellate Body reform measures but agreement between WTO members is unlikely in a foreseeable future. Alternative dispute settlement mechanisms should be seriously considered such as interim appeal arbitration arrangements, separate dispute settlement mechanisms for trade remedies, unilateral retaliatory measures without WTO authorization. Rules-based multilateral dispute settlement system is imperative to small open economies like Korea. The Korean government should actively participate in Appellate Body reform discussions with other WTO members to keep the WTO dispute settlement system from collapsing.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.217-245
• /
• 2001

Like traditional commerce, disputes are bound to arise in the course of conducting an e-commerce transaction. At present of June 30, 2001, 259 cases of dispute on e-commerce have been applied for the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, types of them are 170 cases of delayed delivery of commodity, 21 cases of contract cancellation and refund, 16 cases of personal information protection, 16 cases of false and exaggerated advertisement, 14 cases of commodity defect. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute are litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). ADR encompasses mediation, arbitration, and similar private tools for resolving disputes. ADR offers many perceived advantages. Speed of resolution and low cost are often cited as the primary benefits. Therfore e-commerce disputes may be settled more effectively by litigation. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute by ADR are the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, the mediation of Consumer Dispute Mediation Commercial Arbitration Board, and the arbitration of Korean Commerical Arbitration Board. E-commerce sets up the probability that its merchants and customers will not exist in the same legal jurisdictions. The confusing application of laws and wide geographical dispersion of these parties will necessitate a faster and cheaper dispute resolution methodology. Therefore, online ADR may be effective for e-commerce dispute resolution. The examples of online ADR opetation are the cyber mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Resolution Committee, the cyber mediation of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, the cyber mediation of Click N Settle, the online ADR of BBB online, and the cyber arbitration of virtual Magistrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 2002

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a system to settle disputes without having to pursue a judgment through the courts; it provides an alternative to conventional judicial proceedings. As such, ADR is available to resolve a wide range of disputes, ranging from minor disagreements between neighbors to contracts involving millions of dollars. One can say there has been “efficient resolution of a dispute” only when it has been settled rapidly and finally to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, inexpensively and in a transparent manner. In this respect, ADR may well be regarded as the most efficient method to resolve disputes. In order to establish and disseminate ADR as a practical dispute-settlement procedure, first, governmental financial support is necessary, rather than having to depend upon fees collected from the disputing parties. At the same time, various inducement policies also are required. The most important factor is to make people aware of the fact that ADR is a low-cost, speedy system and more practical compared with other procedures. Second, cooperation from legal circles, lawyers in particular, is absolutely necessary. If disputes become serious, the general public normally seeks out lawyers for advice. Third, disputing parties have to be convinced of the benefits of ADR, secure in the knowledge that ADR will provide them not only with economic benefit but also a satisfactory result. Diverse ADR procedures should be developed and implemented to facilitate participation in a comfortable atmosphere with a mutually friendly relationship. The most important factor in achieving the wider use of ADR, which is attracting more attention of late, is the expectation that it will bring a satisfactory resolution to the related parties in dispute. The trend of seeking a new dispute-settlement method also reflects the changing sense of values in society today. Therefore, one specific method is not suitable for all kinds of disputes. A proper system should offer different approaches according to the pattern and type of dispute and the parties concerned. In selecting a dispute-resolution system, several factors have to be considered - the relationship between the parties, their financial situations, the necessity of maintaining confidentiality, urgency for settlement, etc. In the light of all these, it is desirable for the disputing parties to select the most appropriate of the available systems, not blindly turning to the courts, if and when a dispute arises.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2018

The purposes of this study are as follows: First, this study reviews the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations of the EU to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the future. Second, this study tries to seek out alternative solutions to dispute resolutions based on these regulations. Third, this study increases the efficiency of the transactions by proposing effective and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for international e-commerce. First, this study reviews the concept of cross-border e-commerce, generally explores ODR, and creates comparisons with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Subsequently, this study looks into domestic ODR system and analyzes the regulations of EU ODR. This study suggests the implications of the European ODR regulations in the conclusion. The EU ODR platform is considered greatly significant in that it has increased the possibility of settlements in small disputes by enhancing consumers' accessibility to ADR procedures. Therefore, this thesis proposes a method for Korean companies to resolve disputes that may arise in e-commerce with EU by using the ODR platform. As a result, it is expected to increase the competitiveness of Korean companies in the EU market. Both legislative trends related to the ODR of the EU and establishment of the EU ODR platform have significant implications for Korean businesses in Europe. This study is expected to be useful for our businesses in the EU in reviewing the applicability of the EU ODR regulations and the dispute settlement procedures through the EU ODR platform. In addition, this study is expected to prove useful in relation to consumer protection by enhancing consumers' accessibility to dispute settlement institutions in domestic electronic commerce.