• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.263-292
• /
• 2005

In China, as far as the enforcement of the award is concerned, a three-pronged regime exists : each for domestic, foreign-related and foreign awards. As opposed to domestic awards, foreign-related awards are defined as those involving 'foreign-element.' Among them, this article focuses on the enforcement regimes of foreign-related and foreign arbitral award, and strives to provide a practical outlook of the arbitral award enforcement regime in China. For that, this article consists of five chapters. In chapter I, the purpose and scope of this study are mentioned; In Chapter II, the types, the statutory framework, the related measures, the statistical assessment on enforcement of arbitral awards are addressed. Chapter III points out some issues on the enforcement regimes of foreign-related and foreign arbitral awards, with focus paid to the recognition of foreign-related arbitral awards, the substantive judicial review of foreign-related arbitral awards, and the refusal of enforcement with the social and public interest ground. Chapter VI introduces two non-enforcement cases of foreign-related and foreign arbitral awards. Lastly in chapter V, the author makes a proposal to improve the enforcement regime in China. Although China already obtained a certain level of achievement, she still need to be undertaken by the government and judicial authorities to offset the negative effects of some obstacles to hamper the enforcement such as protectionism so that she may create a more favorable arbitration environment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2005

The purposes of this paper are to investigate how deeply the courts in Korea and the U.S. are involved in the enforcement process of the arbitral award. The extent of judicial review of arbitral award and the procedures to execute the arbitral award were explored and compared in each of the countries. In Korea the winning party should file a suit for enforcement judgement to execute the arbitral award, while the winning party in the U.S. should file an application for motion. Such difference in the execution process between Korea and the U.S. may be led to a higher burden on the Korean winning party in the execution process due to the complexity and instability during the new litigation for enforcement judgement. In addition, the Korean Arbitration Act does not grant any authority for the court to intervene with the substantive matters in the arbitral award, while in the U.S. the Common Law allows the court to vacate the arbitral ward when the arbitral award is entered with the manifest disregard of the law by the arbitral tribunal. It would be more practical for the court to supplementarily intervene with the arbitral award which obviously hurts the legal interest of the arbitral parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2014

Ever since its introduction in the 1927 ICC Arbitration Rules, scrutiny of awards by the ICC Court has been a cornerstone feature of ICC arbitration. Most players involved in the arbitral process are likely to concede that a certain level of review of arbitral awards is both desirable and beneficial. Indeed, proponents among the users are frequently influenced in their choice of the ICC as the administering arbitral institution, based on their strong conviction that time and money invested in the resolution of a dispute is ultimately only well spent if awards are voluntarily complied with or at least less susceptible to be set aside. By providing a look behind the scenes of the scrutiny process, the article does away with tales of excessive intervention on behalf of the arbitral institution when reviewing and approving awards and demystifies the role played by the ICC Court throughout its close interaction with arbitral tribunals operating under the ICC Rules. The article further argues that the scrutiny process can be a highly efficient tool that helps to increase the quality and enforceability of awards rendered under the aegis of the ICC.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2004

In these days, arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards？ The decision in Sawtelle, adopting a separate ground for review of punitive damages awards, is one that signals a significant change in the field of arbitration. This article addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing. It would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system. Compared to American practices, there could be many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be a future assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us. This article analyzed predispute arbitration agreements and agreements to arbitrate after a dispute has already arisen.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.91-130
• /
• 2010

This thesis, which mainly focuses on judicial supervision of commercial arbitration in China, will deal with the developing process of arbitration system and analyze the actual condition of judicial supervision in commercial arbitration. And it also focuses on the underlying problems attributed to the excessive judicial intervention and an effort that the related academic world, arbitration industry and legal circles in China start to make in order to improve the system, resolving them. About the time China became a member of the WTO and about the 10th anniversary of the enforcement of Arbitration Law, powerful demands to solve the problems started to exist intensively. Academic field in China integrated these demands into the form of "proposed amendment of arbitration law", which enhanced the independence of arbitration and the autonomy of the involved parties drastically, as it accepted major contents of UNCITRAL Model Law while preserving of original tool of Chinese arbitration system. Separately from the movement in academic field, Supreme People's Court starts to exert itself for the, improvement of arbitration system, by announcing a series of proposed judicial interpretation so that it could collect the public opinion continuously and reflect the gathered opinion in judicial interpretation efficiently. Notwithstanding, there still remains to be ameliorated that the Arbitration Law of the PRC won't be able to overcome original limit when valuating judicial intervention on arbitration in some ways.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• 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).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.