• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2013

Overriding Mandatory rules are laws that purport to apply irrespective of the law chosen by the parties to govern their contractual relations. This article examines their role and applicability in international arbitration. The overriding mandatory rules pose a complex and continuing problem for arbitrators because they put the interests of states and parties in direct competition. When a law says that arbitrators must apply it, yet the parties' contract excludes it, what should the arbitrators do? Where should their allegiance lie? The answer depends on the underlying nature of arbitration - and since that can be legitimately conceptualized in different ways, a principled approach to overriding mandatory rules seems to be impossible to provide. Nevertheless, a practical solution is required, because there were European cases in which courts voided valid arbitration agreements made, reasoning that arbitrators certainly would not apply and/or take into account its overriding mandatory rules of indemnity right granted to commercial agent and distributor in Europe. Therefore, this paper first examines status of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international litigation and then explores any possibility of application of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international commercial arbitration. With this analysis, the author reaches into a conclusion that the arbitrator should and/or take into account overriding mandatory rules of another law, yet should limit to them of the country where characteristic performance is made under the contract.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.95-106
• /
• 2023

This informative piece delves into the intriguing and crucial history of third-party funding in Nigeria and its application in the Arbitration and Mediation Act of 2023. The article analyses the impact of this funding on cross-border transactions while addressing concerns about mandatory disclosure. The absence of remedies or sanctions for non-disclosure is also a matter of concern that warrants thoughtful examination. The article looks closer at the role of courts, tribunals, and arbitral institutions in addressing gaps in the Act. Ultimately, it presents a well-considered set of recommendations for moving forward. Overall, this piece provides a comprehensive and insightful look into the intricate world of third-party funding and its significance within the Nigerian legal system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.23-46
• /
• 2021

Sports disputes have specific characteristics compared to disputes that arise in the field of commerce. One particularity is the judicial system in which the CAS plays a key role as the International Supreme Court for sports-related matters. The CAS Code applies whenever the parties agree to submit a sports-related dispute to the CAS(Art. R27). Once the parties to the arbitration agreement have decided that the CAS Code should govern their proceedings. The parties' autonomy is, however, limited to the provisions of the CAS Code that provide for such a corresponding autonomy. The application of the mandatory rules contained in the CAS Code cannot be excluded. In CAS appeals arbitration proceedings, the Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable sports regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties(Art. R58). In international sports disputes, the uniform application and interpretation of the relevant regulations are essential. Therefore, Art. R58 should be applied as a mandatory rule without any changes. Regulations of the sports organizations are to be qualified as valid rules of law. CAS panels may also apply the so-called lex sportiva to the merits before considering statutory provisions of national jurisdictions. In this way, the specificities in (international) sports disputes can be taken into account without the need to further examine the application of national legal standards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2015

This paper sets out a multi-dimensional approach that parties drafting a "hybrid clause" for their arbitration agreement can adopt, for purposes of maximizing enforceability, taking into account the multi-jurisdictional interplay between the seat Court, the governing law and the enforcement Court(s), as well as mandatory rules that can be present in the lex arbitrii, the governing law, and/or the law of the enforcement for a. This paper draws on both the co-authors' practice experience, as well as first principles of party autonomy in light of mandatory rules, based predominantly on the scholarship of Briggs and Nygh.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.49-76
• /
• 2017

Lex arbitri, a law that regulates arbitration procedures at arbitral seat, can be viewed as an additional procedural law. In addition, the lex arbitri refers to mandatory provision imposed by each country on arbitrators in their own territory. The reason is that the lex arbitri often relates to matters of public policy of the place of arbitration. In Korea, the LMAA terms is frequently mentioned in the shipping industry in Korea, and the LMAA terms clause is often set up in the contract between Korean companies. However, the study of the UK Arbitration Act 1996, which regulates the LMAA arbitration, is not so much in Korea. On the other hand, Lex Arbitri, a corporation that regulates mediation procedures in arbitration, can be viewed as an additional procedure. There may also be procedures that must be followed compulsorily by the Arbitration Act of Arbitration. The reason is that Lex Arbitri seems to be related to the public policy of the arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration law of the country of arbitration seat may be the most important regulations in relation to the legality of the arbitration procedure. If the proceedings of the arbitration violate the Lex Arbitri, the arbitral award may be nullified. The purpose of this study is to analyze the arbitration theory, international arbitration and Lex Arbitri, focusing on the UK Arbitration Act 1996.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.65-88
• /
• 2019

The ICC International Court of Arbitration ('the ICC') has published the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration ('2019 Revised Note) which came into force on the 1st of January 2019. The 2019 Revised Note is aimed at providing parties and arbitral tribunals with practical guidance regarding the conduct of arbitrations pursuant to the ICC Arbitration Rules as well as the practices of the ICC. Unless otherwise stipulated, the 2019 Revised Note applies to all ICC arbitration cases, regardless of the version of the ICC Arbitration Rules, in accordance with which they are conducted. The most noteworthy amendment is the introduction of provisions on a new mandatory transparency system by setting forth the publication of the arbitration case data and arbitral awards, maintaining the rule stipulating the provision of information regarding arbitral tribunal under the ICC 2016 Note. Among others, the 2019 Revised Note provides that parties and arbitrators in ICC arbitrations accept that ICC awards made as of the 1st of January 2019 may be published, excluding some exceptions. Under this circumstance, this paper i) explains five amendments of the 2019 ICC Revised Note, ii) examines major issues regarding the publication of information of arbitral tribunal and awards, iii) makes a comparative analysis of that attitude of 11 international arbitration institutions, and lastly iv) suggests recommendations for the Korean arbitration community.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.75-93
• /
• 2001

The advantages of arbitration such as promptness, economy and flexibility apply to the disputes arising from corporate governance between shareholders and a corporation. The confidentiality of arbitration can be particularly highlighted in the disputes among the members inside corporation. But it appears that the shareholders believe litigation the best way to pursue liabilities of managers of corporation and improve the system of corporate governance. And it is claimed that the current litigation system lacks the implementation of shareholders rights due to structural deficiency and therefore need bring class actions into the system of Korean jurisprudence. The OECD, which afforded the rescue finances to Korea, also recommended shareholder class actions as a way to improve corporate governance. Class actions have merits but even advanced countries consider the changes of existing system or only stay class actions in the stage of discussion. Rather, legal experts urge arbitration to be used more frequently and the Courts also approved the dispute resolutions of the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration. There is no report in Korea that arbitration was used to resolve the disputes between shareholders and the managers, or between shareholders and corporation, which is listed in the Stock Market. There only are the debates for bring class actions into the judicial system between NGOs and the organizations of corporate managers. But arbitration has greater advantages in resolving the disputes among the members of corporation that any other methods for dispute resolution. Arbitration can interpret flexibly the mandatory provisions of the Statutes of Security and the Code of Commerce to meet the needs of parties involved, which is not possible to the Courts. Arbitration can issue the award to meet the equity of the parties. And arbitration can avoid a resolution of All or Nothing by fully considering the specific situations of Korean corporations(such as family-dominated management) and can issue the award beneficial to all parties of shareholders, managers and corporation. Thus it should be sought to resolve the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.21-45
• /
• 2020

The major legal issues of this case were governing law questions regarding the liability of the shipowner/employer to its employee. It is true that in the absence of the parties' choice of law, the arbitral tribunal may apply the substantive laws or rules of law which it deems appropriate. However, it does not mean that the arbitral tribunal has arbitrary discretion in choosing the appropriate law as the governing law of the case; rather, the arbitrators should carefully examine the conflict of law rules of the forum and the requirement of the law of the country where the upcoming arbitral award will be enforced. They must bear in mind the role of the "connecting factors" in determination of the governing law. Therefore, the application of an alien law, which has minimal connecting factor with the case, may lead to a conclusion that is hardly understood by the parties. On the same token, the arbitrators must pay attention to applying the mandatory rules of a country, the laws of which not being the governing law of the issue. It is said that the application of the mandatory rules is a necessary evil to secure the enforcement of the award in the country, which has national interest in applying its own law to the issue. Further, arbitrators must pay attention to the consistent application of the law and respect the integrity of a legal system to reach a fair conclusion. The place of service of a seafarer for a vessel navigating international sea ought to be its home port country rather than the country of the ship registry, and the party autonomy in choice of the law in a seafarer employment should be respected.