• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.133-157
• /
• 2014

To confirm the division of the scope of sports arbitration, the English sports arbitration system will be analyzed as well as the scope of the regulations of the international sports arbitration court. If these forms of sport arbitration are combined with the existing China legal system and sports systems, they will effectively deal with the procedures of sports arbitration and of their linked programs, and clarify the nature of sports arbitration. With regard to the judicial supervision mode, domestic scholars have two theoretical perspectives, "comprehensive supervision theory" and "program supervision theory". Based on analyzing the above theories, the author believes that the opposition between the two is not absolute, as both can reach agreement on the important issue of whether to conduct substantive court examination or not under the premise of party autonomy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2015

Arbitration clauses or institutional arbitration rules rarely, if ever, specify the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. A wide range of laws may thus govern this question, such as the law at the place of arbitration, the law where the agreement or the award is enforced or the law of the main contract between the parties. It is also conceivable that international uniform law or soft law may play a role. Tribunals and courts seized with this question must consequently decide which of these various laws shall apply to verify the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. This paper picks up on this controversially debated conflict of laws issue. At times, this debate is characterized by a strong divide between arbitration and international trade law practitioners. But are the different approaches really leading to diverging results in arbitral practice?

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.93-119
• /
• 2016

Park Tae-hwan, the Korean Olympic gold medal swimmer, was suspended for eighteen months by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) in September 2014. Park completed his suspension in March 2016, but the Korea Olympic Committee (KOC), relying on its Article 5.6, then prohibited him from joining the national team for an additional three years for the same doping violation. The KOC's penalty exceeded that provided by the World Anti-Doping Code, which governs the Olympics and most international sports federations, and contravened well-established precedent from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The KOC, along with the Korea Swimming Federation, maintained the suspension until decisions by the Seoul Eastern District Court and CAS forced them to retract the penalty. We describe the sports regulations and arbitration decisions governing the Park case, how each side used the law to support their positions, the flaws in the KOC's legal analysis, and the case's resolutions by the Korean court and CAS. Finally, because this legal conflict has damaged the KOC's reputation, created uncertainty over the committee's doping penalties, and undercut the authority of the World Anti-Doping Code and the CAS in Korea, we recommend institutional changes in Korea's sports jurisprudence.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.111-129
• /
• 2018

The foundation of arbitration is the arbitration agreement between parties. If no agreement to arbitrate exists, the parties should not send to arbitrate their disputes. In the United States, there are no provisions as to arbitrability under the Federal Arbitration Act. Before a court can enforce arbitration, it must first determine arbitrability. The general presumption is that the issue of arbitrability should be resolved by the courts. The question of whether parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration raises a question of arbitrability which is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably have provided otherwise. Determining if the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute involves inquiries into whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims, and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review how to settle the issue of arbitrability in the U.S. federal courts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2011

In the past, Chinese arbitral system and Chinese arbitral associations were avoided by international society due to the cases which Chinese court rejected the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on rural protection. Especially Chinese court adjudicated to reject the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by interpreting public policy broadly. The abuse of public policy by court threats the existence of commercial arbitration system. Under this awareness, the author figured out Chinese court shows what kind of attitude about public policy of Chinese court in the present through analyzing the cases about rejection of enforcement in Chinese arbitral awards in order to analyze whether Chinese court still maintain the negative attitude like past or there exist changes with public policy which is one of the rejection reasons of recognition and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards as the central figure. Chinese court behaved in an uncooperative attitude about arbitral awards like that it reached a verdict to reject the enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy about several foreign arbitral awards at the beginning stage of establishing arbitration law. However, the situation of abuse in public policy was improved a lot by Chinese prime court which enforces pre-inspection system about judgment of rejection of enforcement in arbitral awards. So, there is no case about rejecting the approval and enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy by Chinese court except Yongning Co. case. Moreover, Chinese court got the trust and support from other countries through reinforcement of applied standard. However, Chinese court had been expressed concern from international society because they highly applied public policy and rejected to enforce arbitral awards in the recent case of Yongning Co.. Therefore, this study examined whether it is appropriate to apply public policy of Chinese court in the case of Yongning Co., and then I concluded that. Although Yongning Co. case is the first case which Chinese prime court agrees with public policy by reason of rejection of approval and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that Chinese court has fundamental change in basic attitude and position about the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chinese court keeps the cautious uses of public policy in legal judgment of foreign arbitral awards and it looks like implementing the obligation in regulation of New York Convention sincerely.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2017

This article tried to describe the laws concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in Indonesia. This issue is relevant in the light of frequent curiosity of foreign commentators, business communities, practicing lawyers, concerning the arbitration in Indonesia, in particular its enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. The main laws on arbitration analyzed were, firstly, the Indonesian law on arbitration, namely Law No 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Presidential Regulation No 34 of 1981 concerning the Ratification of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. The provisions of Law of 1999 analyzed were confined to its international provisions on arbitration, in particular the requirements for the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards and also the requirement that the awards do not violate Indonesian public policy. The problem with the Indonesian arbitration law (and the courts' practice) were that no provisions which provided guidance or meaning with regard to public policy. The absence or lack of guidance or definition on public policy had some times confused lawyers or the parties in dispute fearing that their arbitration awards would not be enforced due to the violation of public policy. Secondly was the different opinion of two Indonesian arbitration experts, Prof. Sudargo Gautama and Prof. Priyatna Abdurrasyid. Both scholars had rather different opinions with regard to the meaning of public policy in Indonesia. Thirdly was a recent case law, Astro Nusantara Bv et.al., vs PT Ayunda Primamitra Case (2010) decided by the Indonesian Supreme Court with regard to the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. This article concluded that the Indonesian court, in particular the Central of Jakarta Court, so far have given its support that the execution of foreign awards was duly enforced.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.131-152
• /
• 2018

On October 31, 2013, the Singapore Court of Appeals handed down a landmark decision in the case of PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International and Others [2013] SGCA 57. The case arose out of an arbitration in Singapore involving the Malaysian conglomerate Astro and the Indonesian conglomerate Lippo, which culminated in a USD 250 million award in favor of Astro. The final award was given to three Astro subsidiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, but who were joined in the arbitration pursuant to an application by Astro. Lippo then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the enforcement orders. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the High Court's decision, and found that Astro was only entitled to enforce the awards. Also, the Court of Appeals undertook a detailed analysis of the use of active and passive remedies to defeat an arbitral award at the seat and the place of enforcement, respectively. It also touches on the innovation of forced joinders of third parties in arbitrations, which have garnered significant interest in the arbitration community. This decision is therefore expected to have a significant impact on the practice of international arbitration, including in relation to how awards can be enforced or defeated, as the case may be.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.183-197
• /
• 2014

1. This study focuses on recent developments of trade transaction between Korea and China. The volume of trade is most rapidly increasing. There have been many items considered to ensure the proper, impartial, and rapid settlement of disputes in private laws by international arbitration. The article contains recent tendencies and proceedings of cases including place of arbitration, language, and so on. 2. The contract made between parties has led to some interpretational, legal questions. Interpretational questions rise mainly from differences of legal systems and legal questions on applying law. The characteristic features of the contract have different meanings, so some articles of the contract can be construed unlawful as a result. 3. As regards the Arbitration Act of Korea, Article 10, the Arbitration Agreement and Interim Measures by Court stipulate the following: A party to an arbitration agreement may request from a court art interim a measure of protection before or during arbitral proceedings. This article examines the application of Article 10 of the Arbitration Act of Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.85-106
• /
• 2017

This article deals with the relationship between arbitration and state court in each procedural stage. As most legal systems over the world respect arbitration agreement, the relationship between arbitration and state courts puts emphasis on party autonomy and provides the independent power of arbitration agreement tribunal (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Most institutional arbitration rules the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Modern national laws have similar provisions based on Art. 16 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this regards the author throws a question in Chapter II, whether the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, namely the ability of the tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction is worth while persisting, and whether the Kompetenz-Kompetenz-agreement should be regarded as valid, with the conclusion, that this doctrine should concede to the power of state court and that Kompetenz-Kompetenz-Klausel is invalid. In Chapter III the author discusses the issue of whether the breach of an arbitration agreement could lead to the compensation of damage. Although the author stands for the procedural character of arbitration agreement, he offers a proposal that the breach of an arbitration agreement bring about the compensation of damage. The issue of anti-suit injunction is discussed also in this Chapter. He is against the approval of anti-suit injunction based on an arbitration agreement resisting the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country.