• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2012

Arbitration provides quicker resolution and may also limit the erosion of business relationships that is often the result of prolonged litigation. The process of arbitration typically involves four phases: 1) selection of arbitrator(s) and opening statement of positions by the parties; 2) rebuttal of opposing positions; 3) interviews, hearings, and information gathering; and 4) rendering of a decision and issuance of the arbitrator's award. A distinctive feature of arbitration is the party's ability to select the arbitrator and the process and rules that will be followed at the hearing. Once that process has been completed, the parties are in the hands of the arbitrator or tribunal. The arbitrator's duty goes on the arbitration procedure efficiently and renders arbitration award. This article discussed various ways the arbitrator leads to a shorter, less risky arbitration, which benefits the parties. We recommend the arbitrator the following comments; Before the hearing the arbitrator decides to whether an arbitration agreement is valid, and a scope of authorities of him in advance. In the hearing, the arbitrator gives both parties a sufficient opportunity to produce evidence, witnesses, and make their arguments. Lastly, the arbitrator need to be cautious in guiding the parties toward an amicable settlement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권3호
• /
• pp.129-146
• /
• 2023

We construct a signaling game model between the arbitrator and claimants, in which the arbitrator's marketing amount is adopted as the signaling device. Assuming that the parties to the dispute select an arbitrator, and if there is a difference in the arbitrator's fee depending on the arbitrator's reputation, the arbitrator will pay to further enhance his reputation. We would like to analyze the cost differences between arbitrators who already have a high reputation and arbitrators who strive to further enhance their reputation using the signal model. From the Analysis of our study, We derive perfect Bayesian equilibrium of the signaling game and refine the equilibrium into a unique equilibrium by invoking the Intuitive Criterion of Cho and Kreps (1987). Further, we characterize the refined equilibrium.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.45-66
• /
• 2016

The FAA provides that a district court may make an order vacating an arbitration award upon the application of any party to the arbitration where there was evident partiality on the arbitrator's behalf. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. held that arbitrators must disclose to the parties "any dealing that might create an impression of possible bias." Justice White attempted to limit the scope of evident partiality to instances where an arbitrator has a "substantial interest" in the dispute before disclosure is required. The Second Circuit held that if an arbitrator thinks that a nontrivial conflict of interest might exist, the arbitrator must either (i) conduct an investigation into the potential conflict, or (ii) disclose to the parties why he or she thinks there could be a conflict. Further, the arbitrator must disclose his or her intent not to investigate the matter. By utilizing a reasonable impression of partiality standard, the Ninth Circuit held that evident partiality can exist despite an arbitrator's actual acknowledgement of a conflict, and if an arbitrator fails to discharge his or her duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest, his or her constructive knowledge of the conflicts can give rise to evident partiality.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.187-217
• /
• 2006

This study has the purpose to investigate other countries' arbitrator systems to compare with the current KCAB's system and to find their merits and demerits so that we can make up for the demerits of KCAB's arbitrator system and to make the most use of its merits. The most important factor of arbitral procedure is the arbitrator. If we compare clauses related with the arbitrator to KCAB's arbitration rules, expand the merits of it and apply the merits of other arbitrating organs, KCAB's arbitration can avoid criticism which it has got so far while it was handling the international cases. Also, we may need to grow up the role of the executive office in the range of respecting the self-government of the concerned party for the rapid proceeding of arbitral procedure. According to the foreign countries' international arbitration rules, they go with the process that they firstly give the concurrence period to the concerned parties, especially related with the arbitral procedure such as selection of arbitrator or filling the vacancy of the arbitrator, and as for the concerned party who doesn't fulfill within that period, the arbitrating organ or the other one corresponding to the pertinent arbitrating organ in case of the ad-hoc arbitration rules fulfill instead.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.183-213
• /
• 2011

China and North America have been South Korea's biggest trading partner long time. As the volume of trade has been increasing, the disputes between Korean companies and Chinese Companies and between Korean companies and North American Companies have been increasing. If these disputes are settled by Arbitration, the parties appoint arbitrators who are empowered to proceed the arbitration procedure and have a power to render an arbitral award. Accordingly, it is very important for the parties to select who is an arbitrators in Arbitration. But if the parties doubt their arbitrator(s)'s fairness and independency, they can discharge them in accordance to law and arbitration institute's rules. In comparison with arbitrator system for way of selection and discharge among Korea, China and North America, some differences are found. First, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or the presiding arbitrator by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them or him in Korea and North America whereas the Chairman of CIETAC choose him in China. Second, the authority to decide whether arbitrator is discharged owing to his fairness and independency, depends on arbitration institute and court in Korea and North American whereas it depends on the Chairman of CIETAC only.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.31-47
• /
• 2008

An arbitrator's duty shall be independence and impartiality such as a judge who has procedurally absolute position. Independence is the freedom from others, impartiality is the status of having no-partial condition. Although these show relevance between independence and impartiality, in actuality, it is not easy to prove them. Therefore, arbitrator has to prove his or her position by opening the public of reality and by having an obligation of notification. Each country which applies Arbitration rules or Arbitration act stays the same as Korean Commercial Arbitration Board does. Hence, each country has the moral principles in order to establish a standard of judgement for essential factors and requests preferentially the impartiality and the publicity. In reality, court of justice in England excludes arbitrator who has the close relation to a person concerned. Justice in France cancelled an authorization of arbitrator because of having the economic interest to the person concerned. And also, In United States, Federal Court reverses an arbitration judgment without giving any partiality to a person concerned because of not opening a public about the relationship between arbitrator and a person concerned. Therefore, decision basis of the independence and the impartiality is standardized by the economic interest of a person concerned, professional relation, society connection, relationship between arbitrator and arbitration representative in the same case while in process of arbitration, arbitrator's nationality If arbitrator does not keep the independence and the impartiality by a position of judge, he or she has to make responsible. this duty is divided by two things: civil case and crime case. and if arbitrator does break this responsibility, he or she will get the cancellation of judge and compensation of damage. However, Korea is placed in the real circumstance without judge precedent and moral principles including the independence and impartiality. In order to getting the good reputation of international arbitration institution, this country will have to enact principles of the independence and impartiality for arbitrator.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.21-39
• /
• 2010

The role of the arbitrator is so significant in the international arbitration that its success or failure may depend on the credibility of the arbitrator. It has long been understood that the ideal arbitrators are should be independent, unbiased, and have the requisite legal and/or technical expertise and experience for the case at hand. Arbitrators may be selected either by agreement of the parties, by appointment by arbitral institution or by a national court. This article outlines the main method of selecting the members of the tribunal plus some of the benefits and burdens of each method. One of the most common methods of appointing arbitrators is by agreement of the parties. This approach is very attractive because it allows parties to submit a their dispute to judges of their own choice, that they also agree on. Most arbitral institutions have a panel of arbitrators and their arbitral rules. So, if disputants agree on a specific arbitral institution, they can settle their disputes by arbitration easily and quickly. If disputants are unable to agree on arbitrator(s) or a specific arbitral institution, method of selecting arbitrator(s) by national court must be employed.