• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2020

This article provides an overview of the state of affairs of arbitrator disclosure obligations in Korea. It shows how Korean courts will analyze arbitrator conflicts and obligations through an evaluation of Supreme Court judgments and a case-specific analysis of the recent Oilhub case and provides a comparative perspective through a review of recent Japanese case law. Although limited to domestic arbitrations, it assesses the various grounds that courts consider when determining impermissible arbitrator conflicts based on relations with parties and when an award might be set aside as a result. With the 2016 adoption of the KCAB Code of Ethics for Arbitrators and its rigorous standards, great clarity has been brought to the landscape. The Code of Ethics marks a significant milestone in enhancing the robustness of arbitrator disclosures and guaranteeing the fairness, integrity, and transparency of Korean arbitration practice and law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.111-140
• /
• 2007

This paper intends to review the qualifications of arbitrator, the disclosure of disqualifications by arbitrator, the challenge grounds of arbitrator, and the challenge procedure of arbitrator under the arbitration laws and rules. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law on person shall be precluded by reason of his nationality from acting as an arbitrators. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenge an arbitrator. Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or any circumstance that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. In conclusion, an arbitrator has a responsibility not only to the parties but also to the process of arbitration, and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and fairness of the process will be preserved.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.157-164
• /
• 2013

Current in Korean Civil law, it regulates the Limited Guardianship and Specific Guardianship as an incompetent person. And as amending the Civil Law, the New Adult Guardianship System passed by the National Assembly on February 18 and it will be fully implemented from 1 July 2013. Therefore, in current law, the supplementation for various disqualifications about quasi-incompetence and incompetence is need. Because, the system of quasi-incompetence and incompetence will abolished from July 1. Thus, for the successful implementation of the Adult Guardianship System, laying the various legal groundwork and should be maintenance as soon as possible the each legislation associated with the revision of the Civil Code to fit the purpose of the New Guardianship System. So, in this paper, it will examine the several ways to amend the disqualification due to the introduction of the limited guardianship, adult guardianship system and prepare the reasonable legal model.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.57
• /
• pp.177-203
• /
• 2018

Police Assigned to Special Guard Act was legislated in 1962 to solve issues regarding the protection of various staple industrial installations, and in 2001, the Security Services Industry Act was revised to establish an effective security system for important national facilities. Thereby the Special Guards System was instituted. The current law has two parts, with the Police Assigned to Special Guard System and Special Guards System, and many scholars have actively discussed the appropriateness of the integration of both systems to solve problems caused by a bimodal system. However, in spite of these discussions taking place in the academic world, the idea of unification lost its power when the guarantee of status regulation was established for the police assigned to special guard. Strictly speaking, police assigned to special guard is a self-guard, and a special guard is a contractual guard. So, both of them have pros and cons. Thus, it would be desirable to give a legal, constitutional guarantee for both systems by strengthening each of them and making up for the weakness of each of them rather than trying to unify police assigned to special guard and special guard. To begin this process, we need to revise unreasonable legal provisions of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act as below. First, since the actual responsibilities of special guards and police assigned to special guard duty are the same, we need to make the facilities which they use equal. Second, legal provisions need to be revised so that a special guard may perform the duties of a police officer, according to the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, within the facility that needs to be secured in order to prevent any vacancy in the guarding of an important national facility. Third, disqualifications for the special guards need to be revised to be the same as the disqualifications for the police assigned to special guard duty. Fourth, it is reasonable to unify the training institution for special guards and for police assigned to special guard duty, and it should be the training institution for police. On-the-job education for a security guard needs to be altered to more than 4 hours every month just like the one for police assigned to special guard duty. Fifth, for a special guard, it is not right to limit the conditions in their using weapons to 'use of weapon or explosives' only. If one possesses 'dangerous objects such as weapon, deadly weapon, and so on' and resists, a special guard should be able to use their weapon against that person. Thus, this legal provision should be revised. Sixth, penalty, range of fines, and so on for police assigned to special guard duty need to be revised to be the same as the ones for a special guard. If we revise these legal provisions, we can correct the unreasonable parts of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act without unifying them. Through these revisions, special guards and police assigned to special guard duty may develop the civilian guard industry wholesomely under the law, and the civilians would have a wider range of options to choose from to receive high quality security service.