• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.1-35
• /
• 2013

In the 21th century, its important role in international commercial disputes has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because commercial disputes have become more complicated and varied with their quantitative increase, it is important that they be settled in a reasonable and rapid manner. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is now regarded as one of the most effective dispute resolution methods for the settling of commercial disputes and merits notice. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which two parties agree to have their dispute resolved by one or more arbitrators and thereby avoid what could be costly and time-consuming court battles. Often contracts mandate that disputes be settled through arbitration. These arbitration clauses also frequently prohibit plaintiffs from banding together to bring an action on behalf of a larger class. An arbitration agreement is an agreement by parties to summit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them with respect to their defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. According to the Supreme Court, general elective arbitration clauses may be considered valid in light of all the relevant facts. Arbitration has been the subject of a great deal of research and the scope of effect in arbitration agreements is a promising avenue for future research.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2019

The fashion industry has been growing in Korea, but the law and the dispute resolution have been less than effective so far. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, ending up with designers and fashion companies relying on their trademarks to protect their design. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems and leads to resorting to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, however, are emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members-both fashion designers and corporations alike-can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem. From 2016, KCAB's Fashion Industry Dispute Advisory Committee (FIDAC) for ADR has promoted a better solution for disputes in the fashion industry. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to procuring innovation in fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an alternate dispute resolution process. The ADR process can mitigate the uncertainty created by relevant legislation or any other disputes, which could result in shying away from any business in the fashion industry.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Korea Journal of Hospital Management
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.106-125
• /
• 2013

Medical litigation, as a method of resolving medical disputes, has been a huge burden on both the patient and medical institution as it is both costly and time-consuming. The Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency has created a dispute mediation process as a method of alternative dispute resolution(ADR). Being in its early stage of implementation, there are still areas requiring improvement as some functions overlap with the Korea Consumer Agency's damage redress and mediation process. This study examines the problems of existing practices in medical litigation while reviewing the mediation process of the two agencies from legal/administrative aspects, and provides an in-depth analysis of the situation through case studies and interviews. While the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency offers many advantages in resolving medical disputes, there must be a distinct division of roles and mutual cooperation with the Korea Consumer Agency. Considering the increasing amount of compensation in medical disputes, medical professionals are being requested to carry medical malpractice insurance. However, this has yet to become a general trend in the medical field despite the growing social demand. As such, the coverage of medical malpractice insurance should be expanded to prevent medical accidents from escalating into medical disputes, thus acting as a social safety net. This study seeks to examine the methods of medical dispute resolution and to allow institutional provisions to reduce the social costs arising from such disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.107-131
• /
• 2013

Online-ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) has been receiving attention from the international community as a means of alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes in both small and mass international e-commerce. The EU Parliament and the Council proposed the Online Dispute Resolution Regulation for Consumer Disputes (hereafter, "EU Consumer ODR Regulation") and the Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution of Consumer Disputes (hereafter, "EU Consumer ADR Directive") as a legislative package, now scheduled to be adopted. Those efforts strengthen consumer protection by enhancing ODR in international e-commerce and improving of the functions of the e-commerce market. The EU Consumer ADR and ODR regulation package will operate in conjunction with the ODR platform as a single point across Europe, abandoning the ADR system of each member. Consumers and traders who need dispute resolution apply on the EU ODR platform linked website, and the applications are distributed to individual ADR institutions in accordance with the Rules and Procedure of ADR institutions in the respective country. Although there has been partial progress in Korea for ODR programs such as the establishment of the Online Administrative Trial and the procedures of individual ADR agencies operating through the website, existing norms do not fully support the system. At this point, we see many implications of the EU Consumer ADR and ODR regulation package on the direction chosen for domestic ADR and ODR policy and legislation. This study introduces the main features and content of the EU Consumer ADR Directive (draft) and ODR Regulation provisions, and describes the direction of domestic policy and legislation regarding Online-ADR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2020

When a dispute or conflict occurs, standard methods for resolving them include resolution by trial or resolutions outside of courts. An alternative dispute resolution method called ADR that aims at remedying disputes instead of filing lawsuits is used commonly throughout the world, including the US and China. ADR, which is a remedy method outside of courts, includes negotiation, arbitration, or mediation between the concerned parties, and the arbitration system has several advantages. The Lemon Law is a consumer protection law of the United States that was enacted in 1975. This law prescribes that when specified quality standards are not met repeatedly due to defects in vehicles or electronic products, the manufacturer must provide exchanges or refunds to consumers. Korea also enacted a newly revised automobile management act, the Korea "Lemon Law," on January 1, 2019, which allows consumers to receive exchanges or refunds from the manufacturer if the same malfunction repeatedly occurs after purchasing a new automobile. There have recently been many cases of large fires occurring while driving import vehicles, causing huge public rage; therefore, interest is being focused on the revised automobile management act. Part 5-2 of the automobile management act was newly added to implement automobile exchange or refund arbitration systems. It is desirable to utilize the arbitration system to smoothly resolve automobile-related disputes that have recently increased significantly, and it is thus being used frequently for practical purposes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.27-57
• /
• 2013

Traditionally construction has been an industry that favoured ADR over formal litigation due to the complexity of technical issues. However, over the past decade construction arbitration has come under increasing attack for its rising costs and growing delays, and expansion of arbitration processes to the point that those processes are approaching the more complex and formal processes followed to resolve disputes litigation. As a result, parties are looking for new methods of resolving their disputes in a more efficient and economical manner, such as ODR. A review of the history of ODR and the practical applications of ODR in use today lead to the conclusion that the concept of ODR for construction dispute resolution appears to be possible and realistic. The advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages, especially given the solutions suggested to overcome many of the disadvantages. While ODR may not be a realistic venue for large complex construction cases, it may be just the ideal venue for smaller and simple construction disputes. In conclusion, given the advantages that ODR arbitration does offer, the most realistic use of ODR in the short term would involve disputes consisting of a simple, one-dimensional dispute within which the parties can stipulate to the facts in the case. In such simple disputes ODR may be not only an appropriate vehicle within which the dispute can be resolved; it might be more easily accepted by the parties as the preferred platform for resolution. Hopefully, international institutions of arbitration will be successful in their development of a international standards and platform fir disputes that can be adapted for use in construction and will serve as the first step in developing ways to handle small construction claims, thereby allowing parties to resolve their disputes in a faster and more economical manner.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.101-117
• /
• 2006

"Online Alternative Dispute Resolution" can refer to the use of online methods of dispute resolution to resolve disputes arising either online or offline. The range of disputes covered by online ADR has been broad : from family law to internet domain name disputes : from small transaction to insurance disputes. Online and offline consumer disputes have been a major focus of online ADR sites. This article propsed that the mediator should explain the process and the mediator's role so as to forestall misunderstanding on that score. And mediators should consider including in either usual mediation agreements additional provisions applicable to communications by email. Online ADR sites should be designed 1) to provide a simple, easily understandable process, 2) to provide detailed information on process, cost and speed, 3) to enable users to move between online and offline processes, 4) to have authentication processes for parties and documents, 5) to have automatic translation system for language barriers. And Government should play an important role in assisting people to adapt technically and emotionally to new technology through information, training and ongoing support. The days of live online television-quality videoconferencing have not yet arrived. Until then, we must hone our skills with the written word.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2016

There is a need for disputes in sports to be settled by arbitration rather than a court ruling, taking the unique characteristics of sports into consideration. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). A dispute resolution system is regarded as: an arbitrator is selected by the agreement between the parties, and a binding decision is made, which the parties obey, consequently resulting in a final resolution. To resolve a dispute upon arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement upon the free will of the parties. In relation to the arbitration agreement, however, there are some cases in which sports organizations have an arbitration clause in the articles of association, regulations or player registration application that call for settling disputes by arbitration. In such cases, the validity of the arbitration agreement may create doubt whether or not this sort of arbitration has been made by mutual agreement. Consequently this is required to be legally examined. The activities of a sports organization are recognized as part of private autonomy, and they include even the rights that establish regulations or rules. Nonetheless, the powers that such sport organizations are able to establish are not allowed without limit. However, sports activities and autonomy shall be protected as themselves. Therefore, if we give priority to arbitration upon the independent arbitrator and fair process by establishing an independent arbitral organization in charge of sports disputes to handle the effective resolution of disputes and protect sports autonomy and ask for a court decision if one party disobeys the arbitration, or the sports arbitration prepositive principle, it seems helpful to resolve the unfairness of compulsory jurisdiction and the clause for sports arbitration and protect the player's right of choice and of claims for trial.