• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.131-149
• /
• 2000

In connection with international commercial arbitration the need to seek interim relief is generally recognized. Interim reliefs address the requirements of a party for immediate and temporary protection of rights or property pending a decision on the merits by the arbitral tribunal. The most common forms of interim relief are attachments and injunctions. If the arbitral tribunal has not yet been appointed, an application for interim relief must usually be addressed to the local courts at the place of commercial arbitration. If the arbitral tribunal has been appointed, the application for interim relief is first made to the arbitral tribunal. Interim relief by the arbitral tribunal is in the form of a direction to the parties. Since the arbitral tribunal has no enforcement power, it may be necessary to have a arbitral tribunal's direction confirmed by a local court which can enforce its order. The New York Convention does not provide for interim reliefs. The question is whether Article II(3) of the New York Convention that the court "shall, at the request of one of the parties, refer the parties to arbitration" denies jurisdiction to courts to grant interim reliefs in international commercial arbitration. Some cases have indicated that the U. S. court have no power to grant interim relief. Other cases have indicated that the U. S. courts do have the power to grant interim relief. It is unlikely that a U. S. court will order interim relief in relation to an commercial arbitration in a foreign country. Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules provides with respect to interim measures of protection. Section 1 of Article 26 of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules provides that the arbitral tribunal may take any interim measures it deems necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, including measures for the conservation of the goods forming the subject matter in dispute. This article gives the arbitral tribunal the broadest authority, not limited to safeguarding property. Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. It may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures. The International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration do not expressly empower the arbitral tribunal to grant interim reliefs. However, Article 8.5 of the ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration provides that the parties shall be at liberty to apply to any competent judicial authority for interim measures. In conclusion, the power of the arbitral tribunal to provide interim reliefs is generally recognized in the arbitration rules of arbitral institutions. However, the arbitral tribunal's authority is limited by its lack of enforcement mechanisms. It is generally recognized that the local courts have power to grant interim reliefs in aid of an commercial arbitration. However, local courts are reluctant to grant interim reliefs if that decision requires an adjudication of issues within the special competence of the arbitral tribunal.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.381-406
• /
• 2010

The enforcement of international arbitration raises a variety of procedural and related issues in national and international arbitral laws. In addition to the problems it is not easy to understand the rights and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal. Many countries and international rules allow the arbitral tribunal to submit the interim measures applied by a dispute party. However, interim measures are not recognised and enforced by itself in international commercial arbitration. It has not been completed in the rules of arbitration nationally and internationally. This is the reason why the confirmation of international and national laws is important to effect interim measures practically. In the case of Korean arbitral laws do not include articles of enforcement of interim measures even permit rights of decision of interim measures by arbitral tribunal in the national arbitral laws improperly and unreliably. This paper discuses the deficits of enforcement of interim measures which is submitted the type of award by the arbitral tribunal. The paper also points out and refers the revised model law of arbitration by UNCITRAL in 2006 which was changed to allow the interim award and should be imposed its enforcement of any types of interim measures by the arbitral tribunal in international commercial arbitration.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.103-127
• /
• 2008

This paper is to research the powers and interim measures of the arbitral tribunal in the arbitral proceedings of the international commercial arbitration under arbitration legislation and arbitration rules including the UNCITRAL Model Law and Arbitration Rules. The powers of the arbitral tribunal may be found within the arbitration agreement or any arbitration rules chosen by the parties, or the chosen procedural law. The power of the arbitral tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction is one of the fundamental principles of international commercial arbitration. It is a power which is now found in nearly all modern arbitration and rules of arbitration. Where an arbitral tribunal has been appointed then it will usually have the power to proceed with the arbitration in the event that a party fails to appear. It cannot force a party to attend but it may sanction the failure. While the arbitral tribunal can direct the parties to attend and give evidence the arbitral tribunal has no power to compel a party to give evidence. The arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitration in the absence of the party or its failure to submit evidence and make an award on the evidence before it. Under most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules, the arbitral tribunal has the power to appoint experts and obtain expert evidence. The power to order a party to disclose documents in its possession is a power given to the arbitral tribunal by many national laws and by most arbitration rules. The arbitral tribunal cannot, however, compel disclosure and in the case where a party refuses to disclosure documents then the sanctions that the arbitral tribunal can impose must be ascertained from the applicable rules or the relevant procedural law. A number of arbitration rules and national laws allow for the arbitral tribunal to correct errors within the award. Most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measure of protection. Article 17(1) of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 states: Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant interim measures. Interim measures of protection usually take such forms as (1) conservatory measures intended to prevent irreparable damage and maintain the status quo; (2) conservatory measures intended to preserve evidence or assets. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the arbitral tribunal must have the powers necessary to make interim measures effective. The Article 17 B of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 provides applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders. And the Article 17 H provides recognition of enforcement of interim measures. In conclusion, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of the UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 would contribute significantly to the security of the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. Therefore, Korean Arbitration Law and Arbitration Rules would be desirable to admit such revised articles with regard interim measures.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.41
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2009

It is not difficult to understand from laws and practices in arbitration area that arbitrators appointed have as many rights as their duties to do their performing duties especially to participate in the proceeding and deliberations of the arbitral process. However, sometimes can be happened that an arbitrator who was appointed by a party, refuses to participate in the proceeding or resign during the arbitral process. Generally, in the case, it is provided that the arbitrator who fails to act can be replaced by a substitute arbitrator. When it is decided to change an arbitrator, the appointment of an substitute arbitrator is likely to cause time delay, high cost with inconvenience. And also it is to be considered for additional cost and delay from possible need for repeating the hearings that were held at former arbitral tribunal. Sometimes, a party want to delay intentionally the arbitration process by using right for challenging arbitrator or designing with an arbitrator who was appointed by the party. That is why the reason it has been discussed for allowing the truncated tribunal that the remaining arbitrators that is named as truncated tribunal are permitted to complete the proceeding and issue decisions or arbitral awards. Unfortunately there are uncertain views on the validity of arbitral proceeding or recognitions and enforcement of truncated tribunal decisions in international commercial arbitration. In this article it is focusing on discussing truncated tribunal's benefits or barriers and problems through comparing with famous arbitral rules of international arbitral institutes including rules of UNCITRAL, LCIA, KCAB and the revising draft arbitration rule of UNCITRAL.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.29-46
• /
• 2022

Until recently, there has been a circuit split as to whether parties to foreign private arbitral proceedings could seek assistance from the U.S. courts for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782. The circuit courts have differed on the issue of whether a private arbitral proceeding may be considered a "proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal" in terms of the statute, which would ultimately allow or disallow judicial assistance in taking of evidence by the U.S. district courts for use in the requested proceedings. While the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the applicability of §1782 in its Intel decision in 2004, it had not established a test as to what constitutes a foreign or international tribunal for the purposes of §1782, thereby leaving it open for lower courts to continue to interpret §1782 in their own ways, as requests for judicial assistance in taking of evidence are filed. In the recent decision of ZF Auto. US, Inc., v. Luxshare, Ltd., the Supreme Court has finally clarified that in order for an arbitral panel to be a "foreign or international tribunal" under §1782, such panels must exercise governmental authority conferred by one nation or multiple nations. Therefore, private commercial arbitral panels are not "foreign or international tribunal(s)" for the purposes of §1782 because they do not constitute governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies. Such holding is necessary and legitimate for interested parties in international arbitration, as well as, potential parties of arbitration who are contemplating alternative dispute resolution for their dispute(s).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.59-90
• /
• 2015

Since 1855, the federal courts of the United States have been empowered to assist in the gathering of evidence for use before foreign tribunals. Today, the source of that authority is 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ which permits the courts to order a person "to give [ ] testimony... or to produce a document ... for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal${\cdots}$ ." It was generally assumed, until the United States Supreme Court's decision of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in 2004, that arbitration tribunals were not "foreign tribunals" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$. While the issue in Intel did not involve an arbitration tribunal, a statement by the Supreme Court in dicta has called into question the exact parameters of the words "foreign tribunal," resulting in a split of opinion among the federal courts of the United States. This article explores the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$, examines the United States Supreme Court decision in Intel, and discusses the split among the courts of the United States regarding the interpretation of "foreign tribunal." The article further surveys emerging issues: is an arbitration tribunal in a case involving foreign parties and seated in the United States a "foreign tribunal"; does agreeing to the use of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration circumscribe the use of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$; can a party be ordered to produce documents located outside the United States; and is there a role for judicial estoppel in determining whether an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ should be granted?

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2021

Recent Discussions on Third-Party Funding (TPF) in the forums of UNCITRAL, ICSID, and ICC are making different levels of progress towards finalizing the rules. However, they also have similarities in dealing with legal issues related to TPF, such as definitions, disclosure, allocation of costs, and security for costs. International treaty tribunals have dealt with TPF issues, too. When it comes to the standing of funded claimants, the tribunal in Ambiente v. Argentina did not accept the argument that claimants were controlled by the TPF provider. Concerning the scope of the disclosure, the tribunal in Tennant v. Canada ordered the disclosure of the TPF arrangement. As for the allocation of costs, the tribunal in Kardassopoulos v. Georgia noted that there is no reason why a TPF agreement should be treated differently than an insurance contract. Regarding the security for costs, the tribunal in South American Silver v. Bolivia considered the mere existence of a third-party funder as not an exclusive factor to determine costs in the earlier stage of the proceedings. Lastly, relating to TPF as a ground for annulment, the tribunal in Teinver v. Argentina declined the respondent's argument that the TPF agreement was the vehicle of fraud.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.215-238
• /
• 2012

This paper is to review the interim measures of arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitration and to compare the emergency arbitrator systems of international arbitration institutions including the ICDR, SCC, SIAC, ACICA, and ICC. Most arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measures of protection. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 are regarded to contribute significantly to the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. A party that needs urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal may make an application for such measures. Major international arbitration institutions have their own rules and provisions for the emergency arbitrator system, which was set forth first by the ICRD in 2006. The application requirements for emergency arbitrators are almost the same. However, there are significant differences in details such as appointments and applications for challenging emergency arbitrators, the process and form of the emergency arbitrator's decision, etc. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider these differences for more desirable emergency arbitrator proceedings in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.481-507
• /
• 2009

Along with continuous increase in international investments encouraged by wide spread bilateral investment treaties (BIT) including free trade agreements (FTA), international investment disputes have been also increasing. This means that a host State, an importer of foreign investments, and a investor who exports its investment to foreign State, need to take measures to prevent international disputes arising from international investment or to prepare for the arbitration for resolving the disputes. Under these circumstances, this paper compares ICSID arbitration rules and UNCITRAL arbitration rules in respect of (i) the institution of arbitration, (ii) the appointment of arbitrators and the composition of arbitral tribunal, and (iii) the procedures for, and the form of, arbitral awards. On base of this comparison, this paper further suggests certain practical issues that the host State's government and the foreign investors should be aware of in order to be ready for the resolutions of disputes by ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations.