• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.179-220
• /
• 2008

The notion of the 'court' is most unique to ICC arbitration. This paper focuses on what the court is and how it works and what the role and the duties of the Court under the ICC arbitration imply for the KCAB International Arbitration Rules. The Court is an administrative body that administers arbitrations taking place under the ICC Rules of Arbitration. The Court consists of 126 members from 88 countries around the world. Court members participate in decision-making process by way of attending the committee sessions and plenary sessions. At the Court's committee sessions, the Court fixes advance on costs; reviews the prima facie existence of arbitration agreements; fixes the place and language of arbitration, and the number of arbitrator(s); confirms and approves arbitrators; scrutinizes draft awards, determines the costs of arbitration; decides on extensions related to Terms of Reference, draft awards and correction and interpretation of the awards. At the Court's plenary sessions, the Court performs only two responsibilities: the challenge or replacement of arbitrators or the scrutiny of draft awards. The Court is required to scrutinize draft awards involving states or state entities, drafts with huge amounts in dispute or complex technical or legal questions, and as well as draft awards to which a dissenting opinion has been attached. Turning to the KCAB International Arbitration Rules, Article 1(3) provides that the KCAB shall establish an International Arbitration Committee. Further, it is provided that the KCAB shall consult with the said Committee with respect to challenge and replacement/removal of arbitrators pursuant to Article 1(3). The notion and role of the International Arbitration Committee was originally adapted from the Court to ICC arbitration, but its role was quite reduced in the process of enactment of its Rules. Accordingly, I examined the detailed roles of the Court to ICC arbitration in this paper and hereby suggest that the KCAB International Arbitration Rules shall be amended in the following ways: The Secretariat of the KCAB shall: fix advance on costs at the first stage and the costs of arbitration at the final stage of the proceedings; determine the number of arbitrators; review the prima facie of existence of arbitration agreement; confirm arbitrators; decide extensions related to time table, draft awards and correction and interpretation of the awards. I, also, suggest that the arbitral tribunals shall fix the place of arbitration and the language of arbitration and make a final decision on the validity of arbitration agreement. With regard to the International Arbitration Committee, it is desirable for its Rules to empower the Committee to recommend any prospective arbitrator and to review and decide challenge and replacement/removal of arbitrators.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.121-151
• /
• 2006

As globalisation extends its effect and particularly following China's accession to the World Trade Organization(WTO) in 2001, ever greater numbers of international transactions will feature a Chinese party. China has certainly made efforts in recent years to rectify law problem. While conducting business in China, foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals and companies. As foreign businesses invest in the extraordinary market opportunities in China, international arbitration has also become the preferred method for handling disputes with Chinese partners or with other foreign corporation over operations in China. The new Arbitration Rules of the International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) came into force on 1 May 2005. The new rules represent a major overhaul of CIETAC arbitration procedures and are sure to enhance CIETAC's position as a leading player in the resolution of China-foreign business disputes. The changes are significant for all companies doing business in China. So, this article investigated some amendments on the basis of 2000 Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.153-185
• /
• 2006

This article deals with the Improvement of Compulsory Arbitration System on Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act in Korea. If a labor dispute occcur, the settlement of labor dispute must be reached for the parties' own accord. The autonomy of the parties concerned is the fundamental principle in the settlement of labor dispute. If the Rights Which are guaranteed by art. 33 Constitutional Law belong to civil liberties, we should consider Trade Union Act as the restriction of basic rights. Arbitration is a procedure which permits the most positive intervention by the arbitrator. It is carried out by an arbitration committe which is composed of three arbitrators appointed by the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission. Compulsory arbitration system of the labor for parties should be improved. In case of necessary public enterprises, more strict requirements on assembly for labor disputes should be prepared and the government should support institutions to prevent labor-management disputes by educating experts on labor-management relations and improving the quality of arbitration.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.12a
• /
• pp.149-170
• /
• 2004

Arbitration is a creature of contract. The parties agree that selective dispute resolution clause provides them with a choice to litigate or arbitrate certain disputes. Under the agreements, the parties had the option in the action. In the event any dispute arises between the parties concerning our representation or payment of our fees and disbursements which cannot be promptly resolved to our mutual satisfaction, you agree that dispute will be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. The selective arbitrations clauses are to be construed as broadly as possible, and arbitration will be compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2020

This article provides an overview of the state of affairs of arbitrator disclosure obligations in Korea. It shows how Korean courts will analyze arbitrator conflicts and obligations through an evaluation of Supreme Court judgments and a case-specific analysis of the recent Oilhub case and provides a comparative perspective through a review of recent Japanese case law. Although limited to domestic arbitrations, it assesses the various grounds that courts consider when determining impermissible arbitrator conflicts based on relations with parties and when an award might be set aside as a result. With the 2016 adoption of the KCAB Code of Ethics for Arbitrators and its rigorous standards, great clarity has been brought to the landscape. The Code of Ethics marks a significant milestone in enhancing the robustness of arbitrator disclosures and guaranteeing the fairness, integrity, and transparency of Korean arbitration practice and law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

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

When a court recognizes an arbitral award, it acknowledges that the award is valid and binding, and thereby gives it a set of effects similar to those of a court's judgment, among which res judicata is the most important. The res judicata effect of an arbitral award generally forbids parties to an action from subsequently litigating claims that were raised in a prior arbitration. In common law countries, res judicata may also preclude re-adjudication of issues raised and decided in a prior arbitration. The Korean Arbitration Act acknowledges the rights of parties to an arbitral award to seek not only an enforcement judgment but also a recognition judgment on an arbitral award. Therefore, the question arises whether or not the winning party in an arbitration must acquire a recognition judgment on the arbitral award in order to enjoy the effects of a recognized award. However, according to the case law and generally accepted views, an arbitral award is automatically recognized without any additional procedure, as long as it satisfies the requirements for recognition. Therefore, in order to resolve this question, it is desirable to eliminate the statutory clause that stipulates the right to seek recognition judgment.

• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how governments determine interim measures based on relevant case studies. In most countries, the arbitral tribunal will recognize the interim measures, but china still recognizes the court's own authority. This is inconsistent with international trend. Although the Arbitration Act and the Civil Procedure Act were amended in 2017, but there is no consistency between these laws and arbitration rules for interim measures. Therefore, this paper analyzes the attitude of the Chinese government to interim measures and suggests practical implications for international arbitration dispute resolutions. Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of temporary measures and timely use in China can play an important role in protecting the rights of Korean companies in commercial arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2023

The emergence of the metaverse, a complex three-dimensional virtual environment, has led to significant changes in the intellectual property (IP) landscape. This paper examines the challenges and legal intricacies of IP within the virtual realm, focusing on the unprecedented nature of these disputes and on the inadequacies of traditional jurisdiction methods. Drawing from international frameworks, including the International Law Association's Guidelines and WIPO's guides, the study critically explores arbitration as an alternate approach to metaverse IP disputes, analyzing its complexities and applicability. The paper further delves into challenges arising from diverse protection laws that pertain to the global nature of the metaverse, including the nuances of various digital assets like NFTs. By assessing jurisdictional difficulties, the paper addresses the adoption of decentralized justice platforms, and examines the role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, this paper presents a comprehensive view of the evolving virtual legal field. It suggests that while innovative methods are emerging, traditional arbitration will likely remain the preferred choice for complex disputes, offering a balance of speed, cost-effectiveness, and legal robustness within the virtual world.