• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.191-216
• /
• 2006

It has been talked about the responsibility of the South-North Korean e-market place(e-MP) collaboration project every you since 2003. However, the feasibility as the business has not been dealt with in detail due to the uncertain environment as well as the complicated procedures of the project. The research focuses on the workable mechanism of the South-North Korean E-Market Place collaboration project. The feasibility of the project results from the newly installed fiber telecommunication network as well as the 1 billion dollars of the trading volume between South and North Korea. The research analyzes on the capabilities as well as willingness of the South and North Korea for the e-MP, and concludes with two paradigms of the future tasks. First, the unified but step-wise structure should be made to promote the project by the political committee (South and North Korea EC Committee) and the economical administration body (South and North Korea EC Corporation). Second, the market-oriented resolution system such as South and North Korea Arbitration Body should be involved to create legal environment. Above all, the discussion should be on the main body of e-MP settlement to abolish the psychological as well as practical barriers to enter the South-North Korean electronic commerce.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

This article examines the Challenge through Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards. Either party may request annulment of the award by applying in writing addressed to the ICSID Secretary-General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The annulment proceedings must focus on the award itself. Because committees have no inherent supremacy over the arbitral tribunal, they should not review the tribunal's findings on evidence, damage, interest, and cost findings. Otherwise, the parties would have, in effect, two opportunities, and that will almost certainly weaken the reliability of the entire ICSID system. In short, because of the limited scope of review under ICSID annulment and because annulment is not an opportunity for the parties to re-try the case, committees should not allow new arguments or new evidence. Since an annulment committee is not a court of appeals, it cannot create a new res judicata. Committees can only decide not to annul an award, thus confirming the existing res judicata or annul the award, in which case the affected decision ceases to be res judicata. An obvious annulment decision stipulating which particular findings of the award remain res judicata should prevent any uncertainty in resubmission proceedings.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.27-44
• /
• 2024

The lack of consistency and predictability of arbitral awards in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement ("ISDS") mechanism has long been a subject of criticism. In international investment disputes, arbitral tribunals have frequently come up with different interpretations and results on similar investment agreement provisions. The arbitral tribunal's inconsistent decisions raised concerns not only among the parties to the investment dispute but also amongthe arbitral tribunals in other cases, which ultimately led to legal inconsistencies in international investment law. Arbitration awards may have some degree of disagreement in interpretation. However, the systemic inconsistencies that pervade ISDS risk undermining the purpose of the investment agreement system, which is to provide a predictable and stable framework to protect andpromote foreign investment while maintaining a balance with host state regulations. Therefore, this study proposes a plan to resolve this discrepancy and review standards for practical application. Reform of the ISDS mechanism could be a viable option to reduce, to some extent, the inconsistencies in interpretation, if not completely eliminate them. Reforms such as establishingguidelines, promoting cooperation between arbitral tribunals, and codifying the norms of the agreement can provide a means of reducing interpretive inconsistencies and strengthening the legitimacy of the ISDS mechanism. Reforming the ISDS mechanism will require all stakeholders to carefully consider the issues and the scope, nature, and feasibility of eachpotential reform.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The legal integration in the European Union that seeks a unified system in consumer disputes and the German Consumer Dispute Mediation Act based on this pursues the procedural fairness of consumer disputes and the equality of results. The role and legal status of the dispute mediator, who plays a very important role in this process, and the stable operation of the dispute resolution system and the guarantee of reasonable results through the guarantee of fairness and independence are very important values. In particular, the dispute mediator under the Act is conceptually different from the existing mediator or mediator, and through this distinction, the duties and contents of the dispute mediator are also distinguished. For this reason, the qualifications of dispute mediators that affect the outcome of dispute mediation are strictly stipulated. There have been some criticisms of this strictness, and such strictness is also seen as an excessive limitation. However, these standards can be understood as one of the efforts to make the dispute mediation procedure more systematic and to operate objectively in accordance with laws and procedures. In addition, in relation to the issue of independence and impartiality of the dispute mediator, the status of the dispute mediator is guaranteed in various aspects. In economic terms, it is not influenced by external factors, and furthermore, in order to guarantee job stability, the results of job security and dispute resolution are not linked. By examining the appropriate level of discipline for these dispute mediators, we expect the developmental growth of the consumer dispute resolution system under our Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.117-136
• /
• 2007

Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the international private law and the international commercial arbitration. The purpose of this article is to make research on the party's autonomy principle for the international commercial arbitral awards. For this purpose ist to analyse regal issue the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility of $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$ relating to the party autonomy. In this Article ist dealt with Art. 29 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act in comparison with Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure provides equally. "The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with such 'rules of law' as chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules." The term 'rule of law' used to describe the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$. Unlike Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para.1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Act, Art. 29(1) of the Korean Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with the 'law' chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. However the majority view in Korea takes the position that the term 'law' should be interpreted broadly so as to encompass 'rules of law' at UNCITRAL Model Law and the German Code of Civil Procedure.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2004

Currently major countries, including the USA, have developed and contrived to activate ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) in order to both choose effective means for dispute resolution and establish the reformation of the judicial system; thus meeting people's revamped expectations due to the rapid increase of, and diversification in, civil disputes. This is why there has been some haste in many countries to organize systems for this, so called, 'the Fundamental ADR Act' which regulates the essential structure to accelerate the use of ADR and strengthen the links with trial procedures. For example, in 1999 Germany revised it Civil Procedure Act, to allow for a pre-conciliation process in cases involving only small sums of money. Whilst, with regard to the Civil Procedure Act in France, new regulations have been introduced with regard to actions before either a suit or return to conciliation. In the United Kingdom, as far back as 1988, additions to the legal structure allowed for expansion of regulations applying to ADR. By 1999 the new ADR regulations were part of the legal structure of the UK Civil Procedure Act. The USA passed the federal law for ADR in 1998. Since then the world has tried to enact this model in UNCITRAL on international conciliation. When we consider this recent trend by the world's major countries, it is desirable that the fundamental law on ADR should be enacted in Korea also. This paper traces the object, and the regulatory content required, for the fundamental ADR law to be enacted in Korea's future. Firstly, the purpose of the fundamental ADR law is limited only to the private sector, including administrative and excluding judicial sector and arbitration, because in Korea the Judicial Conciliation of the Civil Disputes Act, the Family Disputes Act and the Arbitration Act already exist. Secondly I will I examine the regulatory content of the basic ADR Act, dividing it into: 1)regulations on the basic ideology of ADR, 2)those on the transition to trial procedures of ADR, and 3)those on the transition to ADR from trial procedures. In addition I will research the regulatory limitations of ADR.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.81-113
• /
• 2013

The World Trade Organization (WTO) offers remedies for non-compliance by the introduction of compensation or retaliation in the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). There are no the provisions under the WTO DSU and it seems unclear what retaliation is attempting to achieve. Therefore, it is unclear whether the goal of WTO retaliation is to induce compliance or to restore the balance between the rights and the obligations of WTO members. It has been claimed the WTO has a strong dispute settlement system by providing retaliation when the recommendations and rulings of Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) are not complied with. But this seems to be inadequate to bring about effective and timely compliance. Especially there is a problem with free riding by a violating member because the level of retaliation is determined from the expiration of a reasonable period of time, providing an incentive to delay compliance. Also the level of the suspension of concessions or other obligations authorized by the DSB is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment, according to DSU Article 22.4. However, if the member concerned objections to the level of the suspension proposed, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator shall not examine the nature of the suspension of concessions or other obligations to be suspended but shall determine whether the level of such suspension is equivalent to the nullification or impairment. The arbitrator makes an assessment standard of equivalence by comparing the suspension of concessions or other obligations and the nullification or impairment calculated in terms of the amount of trade. But it is necessary that other standards replace the quantitative standards when the level of the nullification or impairment cannot be quantified by concrete damages.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.121-142
• /
• 2017

A study on the global trend of accreditation for mediators implies many important aspects of controlling of the quality of mediation. Firstly, whether or not having an accreditation system, most European countries and the U.S. have a common understanding on the fact that mediators need to be trained to mediate disputes, apart from their own expertise on the subject matters. Secondly, private-led accreditation has been utilized in countries having a Anglo-American law system such as the United Kingdom and the U.S. a while nation-managed one has been operated in the countries having a continental law system such as Austria, Belgium, Italy and Germany. Thirdly, private mediation service providers (usually institutions or companies) play an active role in the training and accreditation of mediators and further make them act as mediators in the disputes referred to them. Fourthly, the countries having a nation-managed accreditation system usually stipulate a certain mediation training and accreditation requirement by law. Fifthly, there is no uniform trend on the minimum hours of training required for accrediting the mediators. Sixthly, mediation training generally focuses on the practical mediation capacity-building, including mediation theory and role-playing, mediation simulations, peer review and supervision. And finally, the mediation theory mainly includes the role of mediator, mediation procedures, mediation communication, negotiation and communication skills, mediation ethics and mediator's code of conduct, etc.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.127-160
• /
• 2006

Civil lawsuits have been the main instruments to resolve any civil disputes until recent times but it has its limitations in resolving all disputes in the specialized and technical disputes only according to the civil trial process. Therefore, many countries have carried out a series of discussions and investigations into the system of Alternate Dispute Resolution(ADR). It should especially be noted that all related countries in the world have enacted a basic ADR law to accelerate the usage of the ADR system. The most representative cases are the American Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 and Japan's Alternative Dispute Resolution Promotion Law set up in December 2004. As such, there is a need for Korea to enact a basic law regarding ADR following the world trend of major nations. This paper looks closely not only into the enactment circumstances and contents of Japan's ADR law whose legal system is similar to that of Korea but also the aftermath discussions of the Japanese academic circles into consideration, in the hopes of providing reference data for the legislation of the Korean ADR system and further aiding in the development of the ADR law theory.