• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2019

In investigating how set-off defenses matter in arbitration, one should take into account that it is not permitted against the parties' will for arbitrators to rule on the disputes that are not the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties involved, because it is considered that the parties intend to solve only the disputes which are the subject of the agreement by arbitration. Also, one should keep in mind that the parties must settle the disputes that are the subject of an arbitration agreement by arbitration when they conclude the agreement, and it is not allowed against the parties' will to resolve the disputes in other ways. The parties may agree whether the respondent can request for arbitration on the counterclaim, which is his/her claim against the claimant, and whether the respondent can raise a plea for a set-off that his/her claim against the claimant is a counter obligation. Failing on such agreement, the respondent may submit a counterclaim when his/her claim and the claimant's claim are the subject of the same arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal may rule on the counter obligation when the arbitration agreement, which becomes the basis for the claimant' claim, has an effect on the counter obligation. Where the claimant fails to raise an objection even after he/she becomes aware that the respondent has requested for arbitration or has raised a plea for set-off by providing his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement as a counterclaim or a counter obligation, the arbitral tribunal may rule on the respondent's claim against the claimant. On these occasions, the arbitral tribunal has to guarantee the parties an opportunity to defend themselves by pointing out those situations. It will meet the purposes of arbitration systems to rule out the jurisdiction of the courts when the plaintiff alleges the existence of the arbitration agreement, in case the respondent raises a plea for set-off based on his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement in the litigation procedures. However, where the plaintiff fails to allege the existence and conducts pleading in the court with regard to the counter obligation, the court must not reject the respondent's set-off defense because of the existence of the agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2017

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party's autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court's judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

In Count case, the owners claimed from the charterers the amount of their loss resulting from the delay to the Count caused by the blockage of the channel due to stranding of the Pongola on the ground that this loss resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions. The Claim was referred to arbitration and dealt with on written submission. In a reasoned award, the arbitrators upheld the owners' claim. The charterers seek an order reversing the award or remitting it to the arbitrators for further consideration : (1) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port of Beira was unsafe and that in consequence the charterers were liable to the owners in damages for detention. (2) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port was unsafe in the abstract by reference to the fact that two other vessels had grounded there. (3) Having held that the Count was delayed for a little over four days by the fact that, after the charterers had nominated the port, the Pongola had grounded in the access channel, the tribunal should have held that the port was not prospectively unsafe. On the that the grounding the Pongola was caused by the characteristics which made the port an unsafe port to nominate for the Count. The court was held that it was not an independent event which broke the chain of causation between the breach of contract and the owner's loss. For those reasons, the court was upheld the arbitrator's award.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2005

Since the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration was signed by the Governments of South and North Korea last year, there has been quite a few discussions on the way for implementing the Agreement in both public and private sectors. The Department of Justice of South Korea was quite active in making the draft of arbitration rules representing the South Korean views in alliance with the Department of Reunification of South Korea and recently held an informal seminar to preview their draft. On the other hand, the Korea Arbitration Association, a main body of commercial arbitration which are composed of professors and lawyers, were carefully watching the steps and the draft made by the Department of Justice. The reasons are to assure that not only shall the commercial arbitration rules comply with comment norms of international arbitration but shall it be made to meet the needs of enterprises investing in the Special Economic District of Kaesung City in North Korea. The concerns of the Korea Arbitration Association can be accomplished if the Department of Justice would modify the provisions pointed out in the seminars. Five general principles shall be brought into the attention in promulgating the commercial arbitration rules. First, it should comply with the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration signed by South and North Korea. Second, it should accept common rules contained in UNCITRAL arbitration rules. Third, it should boost the promptness of proceedings when a case was filed. Fourth, it should feature unique aspects of trade between South Korea and Korea by differentiating it from purely international trade between a country and a country. Lastly, it should combine the respective rules of both South and North Korea, currently in effect. With the above five principles accomplished, it should be noted that the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration the upper authority of arbitration rules, mandates the following features. It declared that arbitration be processed by three arbitrators. Single arbitrator is not permitted. Arbitration can be adopted even if an arbitration clause does not exist in an agreement by the parties, provided that the dispute arose out of the scope of the Agreement on investment Guarantee signed by South Korea and North Korea. It excluded quick and simplified procedures even if the amount of claim in arbitration is minimal. All the procedures should take a formal procedure. It let the double administration offices operate. One is to sit in Seoul of South Korea and the other is to sit in Pyongyang of North Korea. This would intimidate the fastness of procedures. With the above principles and the features considered, each provision in the draft by the Department of Justice should be reviewed and suggested for change.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.53-77
• /
• 2012

Competence-competence refers to an arbitratorpower to determine whether he or she has jurisdiction to decide a controversy. Although arbitrators power to rule on their own jurisdiction is generally recognized throughout the world, in the United States, neither the courts nor legislative bodies have recognized its significance or the reasoning behind its widespread adoption. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is notorious among arbitration statues for its failure to incorporate competence-competence. When courts rule on an issue of competence-competence, it is referred to as a question of who decides the arbitrability of the case. In the United States, the use of competence-competence as a term of art is still limited to scholarly writings. The answer to the competence-competence inquiry is found in an interpretation of section 3 of the FAA which empowers the courts to decide arbitrability issues. The cases of the Supreme Court and most commentators interpreted sections 2 and 3 of the FAA as conferring issues of arbitrability on the federal courts, including the ability to rule on the validity and scope of the arbitral agreement. Traditionally, United States courts have denied the competence-competence to arbitral tribunal. Recently, however, they have confounded the rules by placing primary importance on the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has underscored the necessity of giving full effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement to arbitrate. The result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on contractualism in determining the issue of arbitrability is most evident in the Courtdecision in the First Options case. Under First Options, courts are to decide arbitrability issues unless there is a clear and unmistakable contractual assignment of these issues to the tribunal itself. The Court is appraised that it has attempted to compromise between contractual freedom in the arbitration setting and the rule of law that is necessary in a society that depends on the concept of ordered liberty. In the decision in Howsam, the Court clarified the definition of arbitrability by attempting to draw a clear line between questions of arbitrability that are to be decided by courts and those matters that bear on the allocation of decisions between courts and arbitrators but are not questions of arbitrability.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.287-311
• /
• 2013

The arbitration parties may disagree with the arbitrator's award about whether they are eligible for the dispute case. While lots of disputes cases relating to subrogation are arising, it is not easy to find subrogation arbitration system to handle them clearly. The main issue is an availability of subrogation arbitration in case of the dispute which the insurer requests the arbitration against the carrier according to the arbitration clause of Bill of Lading. The direct parties of arbitration clause of the B/L are the carrier and the holder of the B/L. Could the insurer get the position of the arbitration party in stead of the holder of the B/L after compensation if there was an accident of insurance on the way of carriage? Even though there are a few arbitral awards of subrogation, the reason of the eligibility of subrogation arbitration is not enough. This paper scrutinized precedent research papers, arbitration awards, judicial precedents, and the Automobile Subrogation Arbitration System. Vague dispute resolution system which burden corporations with so many costs must be not good for business. In the view of economic efficiency, blank of contract, reciprocality, and Coase Theorem, it is recommended that subrogation arbitration system for the international trade would be better focus on the hypothesis of "Firm Offer Character of Arbitration Clause."

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.