• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권3호
• /
• pp.3-19
• /
• 2020

With the advent of the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the U.S. and an increase in trade volume between the two countries, the possibility of commercial disputes has escalated among international merchants. It has been well-known that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution is an efficient way to resolve international commercial disputes. When arbitral awards are enforced in the judicial system, the court will inevitably have to be involved with the enforcement procedures. The court is a typical legal entity to confirm arbitral awards. Through a confirmation process, the winning party obtains the same legal status of final judgment rendered by the court. However, a winning party in arbitration will have to overcome a legal hurdle in the enforcement process of arbitral awards. This article aims to investigate how the courts control the arbitration practices and what the basic legal issues in the enforcement of arbitral awards are. The US Federal Arbitration Act is investigated, while relevant cases are reviewed and updated for legal analysis.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• pp.315-350
• /
• 2010

The rapid growth of Korea-China trade that was since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992, led China to surpass the United States and Japan to become Korea's largest trading partner in 2009. "The largest trade" also means "the most disputes", so it is essential to study on dispute settlement and enforcement system of the two. Therefore, in order to make the traders correctly understand and use the arbitration as a dispute settlement method in both China and Korea, this article makes a comparative study on arbitration system between the two countries. And finally, it analyzes the enforcement situation of arbitral award in China, then provides the author's personal recommendations as a countermeasure against the poor enforcement system in China.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) 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. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.53-76
• /
• 2017

Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts-due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes-in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. "domestic" disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of "international" arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non?domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2011

In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. It could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration. It is a matter for debate that disputes containing punitive damages may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. To offer some solution to these issues, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of punitive damages. the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions should be considered. Punitive damages would be the object of arbitral proceedings as the dipute in private laws. When punitive damages pursue only punishment in the domestic arbitration that there is not foreign factors, arbitral tribunal could not make arbitral award containing punitive damages. However, if punitive damages are admitted under the rules applicable to substance of dispute, and there is the arbitration agreement in which is implied that the parties agree to submit to an arbitral award, arbitral tribunal could make arbitral award containing punitive damages in international arbitration. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we accept the effect of arbitral award containing punitive damages, and we admit the enforcement of it, we have to take the nature of punitive damages, the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss and the stability of international transactions into consideration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2022

This paper studies legal regulation of the public policy exception in the Russian Federation and domestic judicial practice on the issue. It reviews current legislation and analyzes a number of recent court cases where an arbitral award rendered by a foreign arbitration body was refused recognition and enforcement based on public policy violation. By doing so, it contributes to the knowledge on the concept of public policy in the Russian legal system and how public policy can affect the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on its territory. The review of court cases demonstrates different aspects of how the public policy exception can be applied by Russian arbitrazh courts. Such decisions can provide a clearer picture of the kinds of situation that can lead to invoking the public policy clause by the court. Also, it is of practical value as persons preparing to file a claim or to be a defendant in a Russian court can be required to present existing court decisions in support of their claim or defence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2021

England is a significant base for international trade in Europe, and dispute resolution through arbitration is active. Therefore, due to the geographical relationship with the European continent, the settlement of trade transactions and disputes with European countries is one of the most essential tasks. In this regard, arbitration procedures in England have been actively used for a long time. In England, dispute resolution methods through arbitration have been developed centered on merchant groups such as guilds from the 16th century and have been actively used until today. However, the arbitration procedure also had the characteristics of the common law because there was no legislation related to arbitration. Therefore, arbitration based on common law was carried out until the first half of the 19th century. In the 'Arbitration Act 1889', two types of arbitration systems, 'common law arbitration' and 'statutory arbitration' coexisted. However, in the arbitration procedure, according to the newly enacted 'Arbitration Act 1889', the arbitration agreement was binding from the time the arbitration agreement was reached. There was a way to select an arbitrator even if it was not explicitly stipulated in the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration award was quickly enforced. Arbitration under contract was preferred over common law arbitration, where withdrawal and revocation of awards were possible. However, in response to these provisions, the England courts considered the arbitration system to deprive the courts of jurisdiction, while a strengthened judicial review of arbitration procedures was done. In particular, England unified the arbitration-related laws, which had been scattered for a long time, adopted the model law, and enacted the 'Arbitration Act 1996'. Under the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 'Arbitration Act 1996', Section 66 deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards. Section 2 of the 'Arbitration Act 1950' is inherited and used as it is. Second, it deals with the execution of arbitral awards under the New York Convention: Article 100 (New York Convention), Section 101 (Approval and Enforcement of Awards), Section 102 (Evidence Presented by a Party Seeking Recognition and Enforcement), and Section 103 (Provides Matters Concerning Rejection Recognition and Enforcement).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.