• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.133-157
• /
• 2014

To confirm the division of the scope of sports arbitration, the English sports arbitration system will be analyzed as well as the scope of the regulations of the international sports arbitration court. If these forms of sport arbitration are combined with the existing China legal system and sports systems, they will effectively deal with the procedures of sports arbitration and of their linked programs, and clarify the nature of sports arbitration. With regard to the judicial supervision mode, domestic scholars have two theoretical perspectives, "comprehensive supervision theory" and "program supervision theory". Based on analyzing the above theories, the author believes that the opposition between the two is not absolute, as both can reach agreement on the important issue of whether to conduct substantive court examination or not under the premise of party autonomy.

• 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
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2016

In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2017

중국과의 무역거래가 지속적으로 증가하고 있는 가운데 상사분쟁 발생 가능성도 커지고 있으며 사회주의 국가체제에 익숙하지 못한 한국 기업의 입장에서는 중국의 상사중재제도에 대한 연구는 필수불가결하다. 근래 중국은 국제표준과 시장경제에 맞추어 국내법규를 개정함으로써 외국기업들에게 법적 안정성 보장을 위한 지속적인 노력을 하고 있지만 여러 가지 문화적, 정치적, 사회적 특성으로 말미암아 법규의 내용에 한계점과 실무상의 문제점이 존재한다. 중국 상사중재제도는 국내중재와 국제중재 일부 구별 적용, 임시중재 불인정, 당사자자치의 제한, 중재기관의 독립성 부족, 중재에 대한 사법간여, 판정집행의 곤란 등 다른 국가와 차이점이 있다. 또한 중국의 중재기관에서는 중재절차 중에 판정부가 직접 조정을 진행하고 조정결과를 판정서로 작성하는 중재와 조정의 결합이 이루어지고 있다. 이와 같은 본 논문은 중국 상사중재제도의 법적 주요내용을 살펴봄으로써 중국 기업과의 상사분쟁해결에 대한 법적 실무적 대응방안을 제시하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.