• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.183-232
• /
• 1999

The legislative body of The People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress, enacted the first arbitration act in China's history on August 31st, 1994, which took effect on September 1, 1995. The problems revealed through a comparison of China's Arbitration Act with the UNCITRAL model arbitration law were studied as well as the enacting process, background, status and system, important contents, problems of Chaina's Arbitration Act, and the differences between the old arbitration regulations and the new arbitration act. These are all discussed in this paper. The Arbitration Act is the basic act ruling over china's arbitration system: it unified the previously confusing laws and regulations relevant to the arbitration system, and the act brings out fundamental changes in China's domestic arbitration to the level of international arbitration standards. It is possible to view this act as a cornerstone in China's arbitration system. But, as discussed in this paper, there are still a lot of problems with the new act and only a few of the merits which the UNCITRAL model arbitration law has. First, under China's Arbitration Act, parties enjoy autonomy to some degree, but the range of party autonomy, compared to that of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, is too narrow. Second, because China's Arbitration Act didn't explicitly provide issues which can give rise to debate, a degree of confusion in its interpretation still remains. Third, China's Arbitration Act's treatment of some important principles was careless. Fourth, in some sections, China's Arbitration Act is less reasonable than the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. These problems must be resolved in order to develop China's arbitration system. The best way of resolving these problems for China is to adopt the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. But it is difficult to expect that China will accept this approach, because of the present arbitration circumstances in China. Although it is difficult to accept all the contents of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, China's legislators and practitioners must consider the problems mentioned in this paper.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. Contracting parties who have made a valid arbitration agreement will submit a dispute for settlement to private persons(arbitrators) instead of to a court. Arbitration may depend upon the agreement of the private parties, but it is also a system which has been built on the law and which relies upon that law in order to make it effective both nationally and internationally. That is to say, arbitration is wholly dependent on the underlying support of the court. The complementarity of the courts and of the arbitrators is a well-established fact; they seek for the common purpose, the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. Most states' laws contain the provisions which have been set for the supportive role of the courts relating to arbitration; (1) the enforcement of the arbitration agreement(rulings on validity of the arbitration agreement), and the establishment of the tribunal at the beginning of the arbitration, (2) challenge of arbitrators, interim measures, and intervention during evidence in the middle of the arbitral proceedings, (3) filing of the award, challenge of the arbitral award, and recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award at the end of the arbitration. Most international instruments and national laws concerning arbitration believe that authoritative courts should play their power not to control and supervise arbitration but to support and develop the merits of arbitration at most. 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law also expressly limit the scope of court's intervention to assist arbitration, not to control it.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.55-76
• /
• 2013

This study aims to analyze the main features of Mongolian arbitration system compared with Korean Arbitration Law which was revised under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law. On the basis of this comparative study, certain differences are suggested: First, the environment of Mongolian arbitration is still insufficient in terms of its operation and usage at the international level. Second, the Mongol National Arbitration Court has established Ad-hoc Arbitration Rules and has promoted Ad-hoc Arbitration although it is an institutional arbitration organization. Third, the arbitration objects are defined as the types of tangible and intangible assets in Mongolia which are different from those of the Korean Arbitration Law. Accordingly, court and officer disputes, family disputes, labor-management relations, and criminal matters are covered by the arbitration objects. Fourth, Mongol Arbitration Law specifies the following persons disqualified for arbitrator appointment: the member of the Constitutional Court, judge, procurator, inquiry officer, investigator, court decision enforcement officer, attorney, or notary who has previously rendered legal service to any party of the disputes, and any officials who are prohibited by laws to be engaged in positions above the scope of their duties. Fifth, the arbitrator selection and appointment criteria should be documented, and the arbitrator should have the ability to resolve the disputes independently and fairly and achieve concord from both parties. Sixth, if there is no agreement between the parties, the arbitration language should be Mongolian, and the arbitral tribunal has no power to decide on it. Seventh, despite the agreement for a documentary hearing between the parties, there should be provided opportunities for an oral hearing if either of the parties requires it. Eighth, if the parties do not understand the language of the arbitration, the parties can directly ask the translation service. They should also keep secrets in the process of arbitration. Ninth, the cancellation of arbitral award is allowed by the application of the parties, not by the authority of the court. Except for the nine differences above, the Mongolian arbitration system is similar to that of the Korean Arbitration Law. This paper serves to contribute to the furtherance in trade relationship between Mongolia and Korea after the rapid and efficient resolution of disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.97-122
• /
• 2013

Vietnam has become an attractive destination for foreign investors, but confidence in the country's legal system to resolve commercial disputes remains low. Reasons include the lack of an independent judiciary, the lack of published court decisions, and a tendency to criminalize civil disputes, among others. As such, arbitration has become a preferred alternative to litigation. On June 17, 2010, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a new act on commercial arbitration replacing the July 1, 2003 ordinance on commercial arbitration. The new act will take effect on January 1, 2011, and it is widely expected by the Vietnamese legal profession and lawmakers will create a favorable legal framework for the expansion of the arbitration service market in Vietnam. The new act is inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law of 1985 as are most new arbitration laws throughout the world. As opposed to the 2003 ordinance, the 2010 Act allows parties to request interim relief from the arbitrators. Also the new act eliminates the mandate that arbitrators be Vietnamese. The law has addressed the ordinance's shortcomings and reflects international standards. Commercial arbitration law is an important milestone in the improvement process of the laws on commercial arbitration in Vietnam. However, it is still too soon to affirm anything definitely because there remain many obstacles to the activation of arbitration. Rule of law and business cultural factors are important. The leading arbitral institution, VIAC, which is attached to the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is expected to play an important role for boosting the competitiveness of Vietnamese arbitration as an avenue to dispute settlement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2006

The governing law in international commercial arbitration may be divided into governing arbitration law and governing substantive law. The former governs the parties' arbitration agreement and the conduct of any subsequent arbitration. But the later governs the parties' substantive rights and obligations, which means the law that governs contract formation and performance, and the law to be applied by the arbitrator to the merits of the dispute. The purpose of this paper is to examine how to determine the substantive governing law when there is express choice or implied choice between parties. Moreover this author checked any restrictions on party autonomy and also any possibilities to deviate from the governing law. In case of express choice the sources of the law or rules of law might be the national law of one of the parties, the neutral law, the general principles of law or lex mercatoria according to the arbitration law selected by the arbitral tribunal. Some arbitration laws or rules empower the arbitrator to decide the case ex aequo et bono or to act as amiable compositions. If the governing law could be determined expressly or impliedly by the parties, the arbitral tribunal would make a selection. In this case the criteria for selecting a governing law are not exactly same from country to country. But failing any indication by the parties as to governing law, the arbitral tribunal should apply the rules of law, the law or the law under the rule of conflict that the arbitrators consider applicable, according to the governing arbitration law. Among the connecting factors offered by the conflict rules, (which means the factors that the arbitrators consider applicable), some legal systems give precedence to the formation of the contract, other system to the place of performance of the contract, and others to the closest connection or centre of gravity. But the Rome Convention, which unified the conflict rules of the contracting states, gives precedence to the law of the domicile of the party which has to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract. Finally this author suggested the Choice of Law Clause which covers governing substantive law and governing arbitration law at the same time. Thus the UNIDROIT Principles as well as any national law may be included as a governing law in international arbitration. So when we make sales or service contract, we should take into consideration of the UNIDROIT Principles as a governing law or a supplement to the governing law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2006

This writing is for the purpose of investigating the specific character and problem point of China arbitration system which has near 90 years history and overviewing the drift of system improvement which happens recently. The arbitration system of China which traditionally does not acknowledge ad hoc arbitration, unlike most of the other nations that employ The UNCITRAL model law and make it their own legislation, is restrictive to the parties concerned principle of private autonomy considerably. Also the independence of arbitration is delicate, because of a civil characteristic weakness of the arbitral institutions and the intervention of the courts on the arbitration procedure and award. The dual system of domestic and international arbitration which maintains after enforcement of 1994 arbitration law is often to be a primary factor interrupting the development of Chinese arbitration system and making it vulnerable to challenges. The system improvement demand of the recent time reflects this point and makes the arbitration system of China to a international standard rather than now, so it is a desirable direction for China to be as the member of the world economy to be globalization.

• 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.20 no.2
• /
• pp.91-130
• /
• 2010

This thesis, which mainly focuses on judicial supervision of commercial arbitration in China, will deal with the developing process of arbitration system and analyze the actual condition of judicial supervision in commercial arbitration. And it also focuses on the underlying problems attributed to the excessive judicial intervention and an effort that the related academic world, arbitration industry and legal circles in China start to make in order to improve the system, resolving them. About the time China became a member of the WTO and about the 10th anniversary of the enforcement of Arbitration Law, powerful demands to solve the problems started to exist intensively. Academic field in China integrated these demands into the form of "proposed amendment of arbitration law", which enhanced the independence of arbitration and the autonomy of the involved parties drastically, as it accepted major contents of UNCITRAL Model Law while preserving of original tool of Chinese arbitration system. Separately from the movement in academic field, Supreme People's Court starts to exert itself for the, improvement of arbitration system, by announcing a series of proposed judicial interpretation so that it could collect the public opinion continuously and reflect the gathered opinion in judicial interpretation efficiently. Notwithstanding, there still remains to be ameliorated that the Arbitration Law of the PRC won't be able to overcome original limit when valuating judicial intervention on arbitration in some ways.