• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

This article examines the Challenge through Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards. Either party may request annulment of the award by applying in writing addressed to the ICSID Secretary-General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The annulment proceedings must focus on the award itself. Because committees have no inherent supremacy over the arbitral tribunal, they should not review the tribunal's findings on evidence, damage, interest, and cost findings. Otherwise, the parties would have, in effect, two opportunities, and that will almost certainly weaken the reliability of the entire ICSID system. In short, because of the limited scope of review under ICSID annulment and because annulment is not an opportunity for the parties to re-try the case, committees should not allow new arguments or new evidence. Since an annulment committee is not a court of appeals, it cannot create a new res judicata. Committees can only decide not to annul an award, thus confirming the existing res judicata or annul the award, in which case the affected decision ceases to be res judicata. An obvious annulment decision stipulating which particular findings of the award remain res judicata should prevent any uncertainty in resubmission proceedings.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.65-87
• /
• 2015

This article examines the Stay of Enforcement of ICSID Arbitration Award. The effect of the stay is that the award is not subject to enforcement proceedings under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention pending the outcome of the annulment application. The annulment committee must decide the stay, unless the applicant sought the stay with the request for annulment, in which case the ICSID Secretary -General must grant it automatically. This automatic stay -which can only relate to the entire award-remains in force until the committee is constituted and issues a decision on the request for stay. ICSID committees have taken different positions on whether a stay of enforcement is exceptional or not. Some committees have held that because the ICSID Convention explicitly recognizes that the rights of the award creditor could be subject to a stay, stays are not exceptional. ICSID practice shows that most committees have rejected the proposition that the merits and prospects of the application for annulment should influence the committee's decision whether to grant a stay. In addition, ICSID practice regarding the specific circumstances that will justify a stay of enforcement is unclear, and committees have focused on different factors to decide whether to grant a stay such as prospect of prompt compliance with the ward, hardship to one of the parties, risk of non-recovery and irreparable harm to the award debtor. Also, ICSID practice shows that even though the Convention is silent on this issue, committees have generally held that they are empowered to condition the stay of enforcement on the granting of security by the requesting party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.81-99
• /
• 2013

One of the most defining characteristics of arbitration is that an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is established by parties' mutual agreement. If a party to the arbitral proceedings believes that a tribunal constituted lacks jurisdiction to conduct the arbitral proceedings, it may challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal in different ways. Although the concept of kompetenz-kompetenz and the grounds to challenge the Tribunal's jurisdiction are readily accepted in the arbitration community, what parties often fail to observe is the time limit imposed by the relevant laws in bringing such objections. This article aims to examine several main ways of challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction and the applicable time limits in each scenario. The article will then focus on the consequences of a party's failure to adhere to the strict time limits and its effect at the post-award stage. These issues will be considered in the light of case law from different Model law jurisdictions with particular illustrations from the arbitration law of Singapore.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2012

Judgment on the validity of patents on the subject of an arbitration does not. In other words, the occurrence of patents generated by the administrative action, and such administrative action by an authorized agency may be treated as legitimate until it is canceled. However, recent Supreme Court judgment on novelty and inventive step as well as judgments about the validity of the patent also made possible by the judiciary. This progress even in the mediation of an arbitral award which is premised on the validity of patents can be seen that possible. However, if the arbitration by an arbitrator if possible a certain portion of the limit exists. In other words, the effect of arbitration between the parties is valid. This patent is valid and invalid in arbitration even if the judgment relative to the effect ceases. In addition, the arbitration award and patent invalidation trial is in progress at the same time, if you consequently will reach a different conclusion. This can cause problems of double track. In addition, by extending the critical target recognition and enforcement in other countries can cause problems. Despite these problems, now about the validity of patents that it is possible intervention is necessary to discuss again.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.163-186
• /
• 2009

On April 11, 1980, the "United Nations on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" ("CISG") was prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and approved by a diplomatic conference in Vienna providing uniform law for international sales of goods. It took effect as of March 1, 2005, in Korea. It is set forth on the seller's remedies for breach by the buyer Section III (Art. 61 - 65) under the CISG. In this study, the focus is only on the seller's notice fixing additional final period for performance (Art. 63) and the right to avoid the contract (Art. 64), with examination on some relevant foreign arbitral awards rendered by the ICC and the CIETAC together. Article 63 provides that the seller may fix an additional period of time for reasonable length for performance by the buyer of his obligation. It was found from the above arbitral awards that the concept of 'reasonable length' should be decided on a case-by-case basis, given the specific circumstances in the case [Art. 63(1)]. It is provided that unless the seller has received a notice that he will not perform within the period so fixed, the seller may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract in accordance with Article 63(2). Article 64(1) provides the means and grounds for avoidance of the contract, which can be avoided 1) when the breach of the buyer amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, or 2) when the additional period of time is fixed by the seller, unless the buyer declares that he will not perform so within the period of fixed time. As we examined in the above arbitral awards, it was held that the contract is avoided when the seller sends the final notice stating that he will avoid the contract, after the expiration of the additional period of time fixed by the seller in the ICC award. On the contrary, it was held that the contract should be deemed to be avoided exactly when the expiration of additional period noted in the avoidance notice is elapsed in the CIETAC award. Article 64(2) sets time limits for avoidance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2008

When several parties are involved in a dispute, it is usually considered desirable that the issues should be dealt with in the same proceedings, rather than in a series of separate proceedings. This saves time and money. It avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions on the same issues of law and fact, since all issues are determined by the same tribunal at the same time. Where there is a multi-party arbitration, it may be because there are several parties to one contract, or it may be because there are several contracts with different parties that have a bearing on the matters in dispute. In international trade and commerce, for individuals, corporations or state agencies to join together in a joint venture or consortium or in some other legal relationship of this kind, in order to enter into a contract with another party or parties, where such a contract contains an arbitration clause and a dispute arises, the members of the consortium or joint venture may decided that they would each like to appoint an arbitrator. A different problem arises where there are several contracts with different parties, each of which has a bearing on the issues in dispute. A major international construction project is likely to involve not only the employer and the main contractor, but also a host of special suppliers and sub-contractors. Each of them will be operating under different contracts often with different choice of law and arbitration clauses. The appointment of the arbitrator or the composition of the arbitral tribunal should be in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The parties have to be equally treated in the constituting of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral proceedings. However, the right of the parties to nominate a member of the arbitral tribunal could be taken away from them, if they are subject to the restrictions by means of the law of the country where the arbitration is taking place. That is, multiple parties jointly should nominate one arbitrator, where there they have to exercise their substantive right in common, or one of them exert his substantive right, then it has an effect on another parties, or they, whether as claimant or as respondent, get the same or similar treatment in the arbitral procedure. Therefore it is necessary to intend to settle multi-party disputes quickly and efficiently.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the party's autonomy principle and the applicable law to the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the arbitrability of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the contracting ability of the arbitration agreement, and the applicable law to the method of the arbitration agreement. If no choice of law is made by the parties with respect to the arbitration agreement-which is the stand situation-the validity of the agreement may have to decided under its proper law, or under the law of the place of arbitration, or the law of the place of enforcement. If the subject matter is not arbitrable, the arbitration agreement remains without effect. The rules determining arbitrability may differ from one country to another, from one legal system to another. If a party is lacking capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked. This principle is laid down in the New Yark Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The validity of an arbitration agreement sometimes also depends on the form in which it is made. Article II. 2 of the New York Convention states that the term 'agreement in writing' shall include an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties of contained in exchange of letters or telegrams.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-70
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the contents and discussions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules that have been discussed and considered by the Working Group. At its thirty-ninth session (New York, 19 June-7 July 2006), the Commission agreed that, in respect of future work of the Working Group, priority be given to a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976). At its forty-fifth session (Vienna, 11-15 September 2006), the Working Group undertook to identify areas where a revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules might be useful. At that session, it was considered that the focus of the revision should be on updating the Rules to meet changes that had taken place over the last thirty years in arbitral practice. The largely amended provisions of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are as follows : Notice of arbitration and response to the notice of arbitration (Article 3), Designating and appointing authorities (Article 4 bis), November of arbitrators (Article 5), Appointment of arbitrations (Article 6), Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration (Article 7 bis), Challenge of arbitrators (Article 9), Replacement of an arbitrator (Article 13), Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Article 21), Interim measures (Article 26), Form and effect of the award (Article 32), and Liability of arbitrators (Proposed additional provisions). There are some differences between the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In order to jnternationalize the Korea's commercial arbitration system, it is desirable that the main articles of the draft of revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should be admitted to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In conclusion, the Commission was generally of the view of any revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules should not alter the structure of the text, its spirit, its drafting style, and should respect the flexibility of the text rather than make it more complex. The Working Group agreed that harmonizing the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law should not be automatic but rather considered only where appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2020

If the interim disposition of the Arbitration Tribunal is not immediately enforceable, it will only give pressure to the other party concerned and the arbitration could work against him if the other party fails to implement it. If enforcement is impossible, the disposition will have no practical effect or practical benefit. In addition, if a system is contrary to its unique characteristics or nature, it will not function as a system or it will become an unnecessary decoration. There is no room for argument that the above provisions are wrong or misinterpreted if the temporary disposition in arbitration cannot be characterized by its characteristics, such as its provisionality, urgency, incidentality, or invasibility. As attracting international arbitration cases can create enormous added value for the national economy, countries are scrambling to create a mediating-friendly legal environment in their countries, and Korea has been more active in arbitration than in the past. Despite various efforts, however, attracting international arbitration cases is still a long way off. Therefore, Korea should create a mediating-friendly, legal environment to attract arbitration cases. There are many reasons why arbitration is activated internationally, but the most important of them is that it is easier to approve and execute. The use of the approval and execution of heavy court is, in turn, the most important requirement of a mediating-friendly environment. It is natural that temporary dispositions made in arbitration should be as easy to approve and enforce as in the case of arbitration. In addition, it is natural for the parties to consider the use of approval and execution when deciding where to mediate or when applying for arbitration; thus, the degree of ease of execution, along with the procedural use of arbitration or provisional disposition, will be a measure of the likelihood of hosting international arbitration cases, as well as the activation of arbitration.