• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this article is to examine the "Annulment" of ICSID Arbitration Award. Most of the international conventions provide for arbitration as the preferred method of dispute settlement. In general they either provide for ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules or under the rules of an acceptable arbitration institution, e.g. ICC, AAA, LCIA and in particular ICSID. The most distinctive feature of ICSID arbitration is the self-contained and exhaustive nature of its review procedures. Unlike other arbitration regimes, control is exercised by internal procedures rather than by the courts. Remedies against the award are limited to those provided for in the Convention and do not include court involvement. Especially, the annulment of the ICSID award by an ad hoc committee must be considered as jeopardizing ICSID Arbitration because it clearly depart from the current trends of international commercial arbitration which limits any kinds of judicial review and excludes any kinds of review on the merits. I wish that the future decisions of the ad hoc committees will restore a narrow scope to the ICSID procedure of annulment in order not to endanger the ICSID Arbitration mechanism.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.199-222
• /
• 2017

Currently, many punitive damages (or statutory damages) and class action laws are discussed in relation to the consumer damage relief system. It is in the background of the argument that the introduction of such a victim relief system will solve many small and large consumer damages. There are many cases in which the punitive damages compensation or the class action system are introduced in relation to the food safety damage naturally. Although the introduction of such a system can clearly help the consumer to relieve large-scale damage, it can not solve all the problems at once because the company can reject the system despite the introduction of such a system. In particular, class action lawsuits should have the same type of damage, but most of the damage caused by food safety is accompanied by physical harm, resulting in various complications such as the physical characteristics of the victim, the health environment. The class action system may not provide a solution in that the content and type of the damage may be different. In this regard, this study aims to investigate the introduction of the food safety damage relief system through the introduction of an administrative dispute settlement system by an administrative agency that occupies an absolute position in the existing consumer protection from this point of view. In reality, the Food and Drug Administration, which is the largest among government agencies related to food, operates a passive attitude consumer protection system such as function like guidance, supervision and surveillance. And it is necessary to make a complementary proposal. In the current law, there is only a small part of the consumer protection work that is positively legal, and even after the damage is scientifically identified, it is not possible to present the solution to the damage suffered by the consumer through legislation. This is a fact that has been raised. In this paper, we propose a reasonable and rapid disaster relief procedure through a separate mechanism within the administrative agency, which is the administration agency, that the dispute settlement procedure due to food safety damage is insufficient by solving the case through the court through counseling, dispute adjustment and civil proceedings. In order to solve the problem of food insecurity and the food industry, various ways of rational solution of the problem were considered. The possibility of (1) Establishment of a food safety dispute resolution committee; (2) Establishment of a food safety disaster relief committee; and (3) Establishment of a food safety disaster relief committee was discussed. In addition, a plan for the creation of a food damage compensation fund was also proposed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2017

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (The Guidelines) was initially promulgated in 1976 as a form of annex to the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises. The Guidelines aims at accomplishing the implementation and dissemination of the Responsible Business Conduct. The latest version of The Guidelines, as revised in 2011, directed 47 adhering countries to The Guidelines to set up their respective National Contact Points (NCPs). NCPs are The Guidelines' dispute resolution mechanism for specific instances arising from breach by multinational enterprises of The Guidelines. Korea to date has its own NCP performing its role to offer good offices and facilitates settlement between the parties to the specific instances regarding The Guidelines. However, there has been strong criticism from NGOs and civil society that Korea NCP has not performed well due to lack of transparency and impartiality, especially in the context of the governance of Korea NCP. Under this circumstance, this paper ⅰ) examines current status and problems of Korea NCP, ⅱ) evaluates the core criteria for function and governance of NCPs through a comparative overseas cases study, and ⅲ) suggests improvement plans for Korea NCP.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.155-187
• /
• 2017

WTO에서는 GATT체제에서 나타났던 분쟁해결에 따른 문제점을 해결하기 위해 복잡한 절차를 분쟁해결양해(DSU)로 통일하였으며, 분쟁해결을 담당하는 상설기관으로 DSB와 상소기관(the Appellate Body)을 설치하였다. 또한 패널보고서의 신속한 의사결정을 위해 역총의제(reverse consensus system)를 도입하고, 사법적 기능을 크게 강화하는 등 절차에서 많은 개선이 이루어졌다. 그러나 미국은 아직도 자국법인 통상법 제301조를 통하여 일방적으로 분쟁해결을 시도하고 있다. 이와 같은 301조에 의한 일방적 보복조치는 공정한 분쟁해결을 저해하는 WTO협정위반에 해당한다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 DSU의 특성과 최근 동향을 검토하고, WTO에서 합법적으로 인정하고 있는 대항조치와 미국의 일방적 보복조치를 비교하였다. 또한 일방적 보복조치에 따른 대표적인 US-Japan Automobiles (DS6) 사건과 EC-Bananas III (DS27) 사건을 법제적으로 분석하였다. 결과적으로 이러한 사건들은 WTO의 정합성(WTO-consistency)에 맞지 않는 것으로 미국의 일방적 보복조치가 국제적으로 인정되기 어렵다는 점을 시사점으로 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.3-18
• /
• 2017

International legal reviews on ISD, a procedure for resolving disputes under the Korea-US FTA, are examined from the perspective of law. If the ISD system does not exist, even if the investor suffers damage due to the illegal act of the host country, he or she must file a lawsuit through the court of the host country, which is unreasonable from the investor's point of view and makes it difficult to guarantee fairness and transparency. Some of the Koreans pointed out that there are some problems with the KORUS FTA dispute settlement regulations, and that the United States federal courts are taking a friendly attitude to the decisions made by the US Customs in determining the dispute by the KORUS FTA Agreement and the US Customs Act. In cases where the State does not violate international law but results in harmful consequences, the responsibility of one country is borne by the treaty. Foreign investment always comes with many challenges and risks. Therefore, the ISD system is a fair and universal arbitration system, which is considered to be a necessary system even for protecting the Korean companies investing abroad. In the investment treaty, compensation for the nationalization of foreign property and reimbursement under the laws of the host country were dissatisfied with foreign investors. In particular, some Koreans have pointed out that there are some problems in the KORUS FTA dispute resolution regulations and there is a need for further discussion and research. Based on the experiences and wisdoms gained in the course of Korea-US FTA negotiations, the dispute arbitration mechanism is urgently needed to reduce the possibility of disputes and to make amicable directions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.273-314
• /
• 2004

There is a belief in the construction industry that the traditional court system may not be an ideal forum to effectively and efficiently resolve construction disputes due to the protracted proceedings and the three tier appeal system resulting in a long delay in the final and conclusive settlement of the dispute, relatively high costs involved, the lack of requisite knowledge and experience in the relevant industry, etc. Hence, they assert that certain alternative dispute resolution ('ADR') methods, such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration or a new system for dispute settlement in the form of any combination thereof should be developed and employed for construction disputes so as to resolve them more promptly and efficiently to the satisfaction of all the disputants concerned. This paper discusses certain merits of such assertions and the need for additional considerations for effective resolution of the construction disputes in light of the complexity of the case, importance of expert witnesses, parties' relationship and non-level playing field of the construction industry and so on. At the same time, however, given the inherent nature of disputes rendering the parties involved in an adversarial position, it would rather be difficult, if not practically impossible, to satisfy all the parties concerned in the dispute. Accordingly, in this study, it is also purported to address the demerits of such assertions by studying the situation from a more balanced perspective, in particular, in relation to the operation of such ADRs. In fact, most of such ADRs as stipulated by special acts, such as the Construction Industry Basic Act of Korea, in the form of mediation or conciliation, have failed to get support from the industry, and as a result, such ADRs are seldom used in practice. Tn contrast, the court system has been greatly improved by implementing a new concentrated review system and establishing several tribunals designed to specialize in the review and resolution of specific types of disputes, including the construction disputes. These improvements of the court system have been warmly received by the industry. Arbitration is another forum for settlement of construction disputes, which has grown and is expected to grow as the most effective ADR with the support from the construction industry. In this regard, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board ('KCAB') has established a set of internal rules end procedures in operation to efficiently handle construction disputes. Considering the foregoing, this paper addresses the most important elements of the arbitration, i.e., arbitration agreement and arbitral award, primarily focusing on the domestic arbitrations before the KCAB. However, since this parer is prepared for presentation at the construction disputes seminar for the public audience, it is not intended for academic purposes, nor does it delve into any specific acadcmic issues. Likewise, although this paper addresses certain controversial issues by way of introduction, it mainly purports to facilitate the understanding of the general public, including the prospective arbitrators on the KCAB roster without the relevant legal education and background, concerning the importance of the integrity of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award. In sum, what is purported in this study is simply to note that there are still many outstanding issues with mediation, conciliation and arbitration, as a matter of system, institutional operation or otherwise, for further study and consideration so as to enhance them as effective means for settlement of construction disputes, in replacement of or in conjunction with the court proceeding. For this purpose, it is essential for all the relevant parties, including lawyers, engineers, owners, contractors and social activists aiming to protect consumers' and subcontractors' interests, to conduct joint efforts to study the complicated nature of construction works and to develop effective means for examination and handling of the disputes of a technical nature, including the accumulation of the relevant industrial data. Based on the foregoing, the parties may be in a better position to select the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism, a court proceeding or in its stead, an effective ADR, considering the relevant factors of the subject construction works or the contract structure, such as the bargaining position of the parties, their financial status, confidentiality requirements, technical or commercial complexity of the case at hand, urgency for settlements, etc.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2001

$\ulcorner$The South-North Joint Declaration$\lrcorner$ of June 15, 2000 made by President Kim Dae Jung and National Defense Committee Chairman Kim Jong Il will contribute to the activation of economic exchange between south and north Korea. To realize the fundamental spirit of the South-North Joint Declaration, the authorities concerned of south and north Korea have reached an agreement titled $\ulcorner$Agreement on Settlement Procedure of Commercial Disputes$\lrcorner$ last December. In this connection, a speedy and reasonable settlement of commercial disputes arising therefrom is becoming a problem of vital importance between south and north Korea. Also, south and north arbitral institutions have to consider a possible arbitration agreement carefully to solve the disputes systematically under the Agreement, which will serve as an example for similar arrangements and possible harmonization in East-West commercial relations. A variety of dispute settlements including friendly consultations, conciliation and arbitration will be used more frequently within the framework of the bilateral agreements of governmental or non-governmental level which have been concluded in the past between socialist and capitalistic economy countries. There is a growing tendency that East-West trade parties recognize and accept the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in their contracts. So it is advisable to use the UNCITRAL Rules in arbitrations of south and north Korea in case that the interested parties fail to agree on applicable rules. Finally it should be noted that pre-arbitral settlement called ‘joint conciliation’ should be reflected in the settlement mechanism of commercial disputes between south and north Korean parties as proved to be successful between the U.S. and China trade in the past.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.99-124
• /
• 2013

International commercial arbitration is a specially formed mechanism for the final and binding settlement of disputes arisen between contracting parties regarding procedures, structures or other contractual relationship agreed by them. It is a resolution system which is processed autonomously by arbitrators who are appointed by contracting parties without involving the national court. If the contracting parties want to settle their disputes by arbitration, there must be a valid agreement. With a valid agreement, the most important concern is which law(called as the substantive law) should be applied in order to determine the rights and obligations of both contracting parties in relation to the dispute. At this point, the substantive law is really important because it is applied to the dispute itself directly during proceedings as well as it plays an crucial role in scrutiny and enforcement of arbitral awards. This article discusses about the substantive law under international commercial arbitration, specially focusing on the regulations of the ICC rules of arbitration, which is the most widely used all over the world and UNCITRAL Model law, which most countries' rule and laws are based on. By discussing how these rules and regulations should be interpreted and applied, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners when they agree on an arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2019

An issue of human rights abuse in business emerged as a serious social problem recently not only in Korea, but also worldwide. However, the stipulations in 'UNGPs' and 'OECD Guidelines' do not provide a legally binding dispute settlement mechanism. Under these circumstances, it is very well timed that the Working Group on International Arbitration of Business and Human Rights recently published the Draft Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which will be launched in December 2019 as an effective and efficient alternative to mediation or court litigation. This paper examines the purpose, the structure, and the unique features of the Draft Hague Rules, among other provisions, including 1) Inequality of Arms between the Parties, 2) Appointing Authority, 3) Presiding Arbitrator's Qualification, 4) Evidentiary Procedures, 5) Remedy, and 6) Governing Law.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권5호
• /
• pp.139-158
• /
• 2018

오늘날의 무역구조는 이전보다 훨씬 다변화 되었고, 각국의 수출입액이 늘어남에 따라 무역분쟁의 내용도 훨씬 복잡해지고 있는 것은 물론 분쟁의 수 또한 증가하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁을 해결하는 수단으로서 소송과 중재를 비롯한 협상, 알선, 조정 등이 활용되고 있지만 소송이나 중재에 의한 해결방법은 관할권, 거리상의 제약, 비용과 절차의 복잡성 등 그 어려움이 따른다. 또한 협상이나 알선에 의할 경우, 효력이나 제도상의 미비점 등 그 한계성을 드러내면서 이들을 대체할 수 있는 방법이 요구되어 왔다. 이에 ADR의 한 형태로 등장한 조정은 조정인이 분쟁당사자 사이에서 중립인의 역할을 하면서 당사자가 자주적으로 사건을 해결하도록 돕는 제도이다. 조정은 비밀보장에 의한 신뢰구축, 준거법과 재판관할권의 비적용, 절차의 간이성, 미래지향적인 결과도출이라는 장점이 중점적으로 부각되고 있어 미국, 일본을 비롯한 중국 등에서는 일찍이 무역분쟁의 해결수단으로 이용되고 있다. 하지만 우리나라에서는 아직 조정의 유용성이 널리 알려지지 못하였고, 그 이용 또한 저조한 상태이다. 본고는 조정이 어떠한 제도인지를 설명하는 것과 함께 무역분쟁의 해결수단으로서 조정이 지닌 유용성을 밝힘으로써 향후 분쟁발생 시 본 제도의 적극적 이용을 도모하고자 하는 취지에서 연구를 진행하였다.