• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2012

No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.191-223
• /
• 2003

Electronic commerce and the Internet offer unprecedented opportunities. The explosive expansion of the use of the Internet makes it possible for businesses to expand their markets and render services. Global transaction costs are easy to cut off using Internet and transaction speed is faster than before. Where cyberspace is not free from claims, Offline transaction can lead to problems and disputes the same is for cyberspace transactions. However ADR is not meet for the online transaction for speed, cost and open network system, ODR methods to resolve electronic commerce conflicts is crucial for building confidence and permitting access to justice in an online business environment. The use of the Internet and the network in dispute resolution has an impact on the types of communication implied in the relevant processes such as automated negotiation, online mediation and online arbitration and involves new technological issues such as the integrity and confidentiality of data and communication used to transmit and store data. Among the ODR systems Online Arbitration is currently binding both parties disputed and can achieve the aim of dispute award the same as the traditional arbitration. Arbitration is based on the New York Convention 1958, Arbitration Model law 1985 and national Arbitration Act that are founded on territorial area and rested on arbitration agreement, constitution of the arbitral tribunal, due process, final and binding award and enforcement of the arbitration award. To compare with this issues Online arbitration has unnecessarily legal unstability and risk. ODR is the burgeoning field and has created a new issues. All such issues which have been debated in the ADR are composed with ODR. But these are not limited Some of issues are further complicated by the nature of the online environment such as confidentiality and principle of parties. It is true that online arbitration should comply with legal provisions, but which is impossible to adhere of the law. Flexible translation and functional equivalence of legal provisions are needed for acceptance of electronic commerce disputes. Finally electronic commerce now takes place on the Internet, it is inevitable that the commercial world wants access to dispute resolution process that best suits the new commercial environment. ODR methods are processing for development and legal issues are considered by both national and international authorities. Introduction of new Conventions or amend Convention and Model law of ODR comes near.

• 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.28 no.2
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2018

As the disputes in the investment and civil/commercial sectors of China and Taiwan have increased due to active cross-strait economic exchanges, the Chinese government is addressing cross-strait disputes through various dispute resolution methods. In recent years, the Arbitration Center Across the Straits (ACAS) has been established to resolve disputes between cross-strait parties, while ACAS Arbitration Rules have been enacted and enforced. ACAS Arbitration Rules are prepared by referring to the Arbitration Act of China and Taiwan, the relevant provisions and practices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules and the cross-strait practical affairs of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, and the cross-strait practical affairs giving consideration to the specificity of the cross-strait relationship and the characteristics of economic and trade disputes. Therefore, this paper has compared the features and main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules with those of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. This refers to arbitration proceedings such as form and effect of arbitration agreement, decision of place of arbitration, and organization of arbitral tribunal; the provision of consolidation of multiple contracts and arbitration, and the provision of joinder of arbitration parties, which are implementing the "principle of party autonomy" with streamlining arbitration proceedings and reducing costs; "common, simple, and small sum arbitration proceedings which require shorter arbitration proceedings depending on the size of the arbitration object; and regulations on the "interconnection of mediation and conciliation" which is characteristic of China's arbitration system. Based on the above-mentioned main contents of the ACAS Arbitration Rules in China, there are some implications to be considered in the establishment of the Arbitration Rules of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission which will be applied to solve commercial and investment disputes arising from the Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation process, suggesting implications such as the need for the rapid composition and operation of the South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission, requirements for selecting arbitrators, expansion of the object of arbitration, specification of concreteness in deciding the place of arbitration, need to create a variety of arbitration proceedings, and application plan of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) or Third Power Arbitration Agency.