• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.39-52
• /
• 2019

There are various factors to consider when parties to an international agreement draft a dispute resolution clause in their written contract. These factors can be classified into two categories. The first category is about the parties and the nature of the contract, such as the parties' places of business and whether the contract contains a simple transaction or has a complicated nature. The second category is about the applicable rules of the parties' places of business or performance such as the private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of court judgment and arbitration award rules. When parties to an international contract agree to a litigation, they normally choose a forum court and a governing law. In selecting a forum court and a governing law, the parties must consider private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of judgement rules of candidate forums. In case the parties agree to an arbitration, they have to choose between institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. For ad hoc arbitration, parties still need to further agree on which arbitration rules to use, and in which place the arbitration shall take place. Mediation involves a similar kind of decision as with arbitration. Traditionally, national courts of the parties' places of business have been used as litigation forums in dispute resolution clauses but, recently, arbitration is being increasingly employed as an alternative dispute resolution method in international contracts. Moreover, there have been international efforts to utilize mediation as a dispute resolution method in international commercial issues. Rather than simply taking a dispute resolution clause provided in a sample written contract, parties to an international contract must carefully consider various relevant factors in order to insert a dispute resolution clause which will work well for a particular contract.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.51-76
• /
• 2023

It is important who is bound by an arbitration agreement and what is the subject of the agreement in resolving disputes through arbitration. However, there are no provisions on them in the Korean Arbitration Act. Where an arbitration agreement is valid, the persons who are bound by the agreement cannot bring the claims which are the subject of the agreement to a court. Therefore, in determining the subjective scope of the effect of an arbitration agreement, we should make allowances for the essential qualities of arbitration to ensure the efficient resolution of disputes on the basis of the parties' agreement, and take caution not to infringe on the rights to be tried in court. Where the rights or legal relationships constituting the dispute that is the subject of the arbitration agreement have been assigned, the effect of the arbitration agreement between the predecessor and the other party should be extend to the successor, when it is agreed to transfer the status under the arbitration agreement to the successor between the three. However, in the absence of such an agreement, it is necessary to weigh the interests between the predecessor, the other party and the successor to determine whether the arbitration agreement has any effect on the successor. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes based on the agreement of the parties. If it matters whether third parties who are not parties to the arbitration agreement is bound by the arbitration agreement or may invoke it, it should be resolved according to the intentions of the parties. Where the parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed to allow a third party to invoke the arbitration agreement, the effect of the arbitration agreement will extend to the third party. However, even if the parties to the arbitration agreement have not expressly agreed on this, when it is recognized that the parties have sought to resolve the dispute through arbitration even in relation to a third party by exploring the reasonable intentions of the parties, the effect of the arbitration agreement will extend to the third party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.219-251
• /
• 2006

As the scale of electronic commerce increases more and more, disputes in the electronic commerce also happen more frequently. As the development of electronic commerce is difficult without smooth settlement of dispute, the pursue of smooth settlement of dispute is very important. Regarding smooth settlement of dispute, the way of dispute settlement through Online Dispute Resolution(ODR) is pursued positively nowadays. However the responsibility of related parties still remains to complete such system. This paper divides related parties into the parties(seller, buyer), ODR providers, the neutral dispute resolver, and the governments. Later this paper examines the responsibility of related parties. As related parties complete their own responsibility, electronic commerce may develop more and more. Furthermore through the development of electronic commerce all nations will enjoy mutual benefit.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.35-86
• /
• 2005

International distributorship contract(IDC), as well as international agency contract is a type of contract which is most frequently used in international trade. But one of the main difficulties faced by parties of IDC is the lack of uniform rules for this type of contract. This means that both parties should be careful about each clause of the contract when they draw up it. The ICC prepared model form which incorporates the prevailing practice in international trade, and which aims at protecting and balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. This author examined the several important clauses in this model contract. The purpose of this examination is to help the contracting parties for better understanding and applying them in their actual contracting practice, which based on this model contract. When the supplier and the distributor execute their contract or use ICC Model Contract, they should be careful about the following points: First, some terminologies(like, "territory", "product", "competing products" and "exclusivity") should be clearly defined in their contract. Second, regarding the supplier's functions including "supplying products" and the distributor's responsibility including "undertaking not to compete", and "attaining guaranteed minimum targets", both parties should make clear about each party's right and obligation as well as one party's remedies available when other party makes breach of its obligation. Third, both parties should examine the relationship between the "exclusivity" or "sole" and competition law which is regarded as a mandatory rule in the territory. Forth, when both parties lay down "termination clause" in the contract, they should make clear about the indemnity in case of termination. Fifth, as there is not uniform law for the distributorship contract, it is inevitable to choose any local law as an applicable law in case of litigation. So both parties should keep in mind to insert arbitration clause to avoid the application of the local law. Besides, both parties should consider their individual and specific circumstances and try to reflect them in their contract by Annex I to XI attached to the end of model contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.145-164
• /
• 2007

The Arbitration costs provided in Article 31 consist of arbitrators' fees, arbitrators' expenses, ICC administrative expenses, expenses of experts appointed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and parties' costs. Among them the first three items are independently determined by the Court in accordance with the Scale, while another two items are determined by the arbitrator and each party. The three items determined by the Court are communicated by Secretariat to the Arbitral Tribunal for inclusion in the award following the approval of the draft submitted to the Court. Also the final award may decide which of the parties shall bear them or in what proportion they shall be borne by the parties. According to Article 31(3), the arbitrators have complete jurisdiction or discretion to allocate the costs. Three common approaches are as follows; First, all of the costs are borne by the losing party. Second, all of the costs are allocated in proportion to the outcome of the case. Third, all of the costs determined by the Courts are shared equally by the parties and both parties bear their own costs. But, both parties may include intentions in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. For example, if the parties wish to ensure that the arbitration costs be shared equally and that the arbitrator make no allocation of costs or fees, the following sentence could be added to the arbitration clause in their contract. "All costs and expenses of the arbitrators [and the arbitral institution] shall be borne by the parties equally; each party shall bear the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, of its own counsel, experts, witness and preparation and presentation of its case" And also, if the parties wish expressly to link any allocation of costs, and fees to the result of the award the following could be added to the arbitration clauses. "The arbitrators may award to the prevailing party, if any, as determined by the arbitrators, its costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees"

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.203-219
• /
• 2020

The parties shall perform all actions necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of arbitral proceedings. This includes complying without delay with any determination of the tribunal as to any and all procedural or evidential matters, or with any order or directions of the tribunal, and where appropriate, taking without delay any necessary steps to obtain a decision of the court on a preliminary question of jurisdiction or law. The parties are free to agree on the powers of the tribunal in case of a party's failure to do something necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration. The parties' general duty may be based on agreements, such as the duty not to ask the court for a dispute, the duty to carry out arbitral awards, and the duty of confidentiality. In this study, as a premise, after confirming the discussion related to Article 40 (general obligations of the parties) of the law, the arbitral tribunal will analyze the authority to execute it based on Article 41. As a matter of fact, in LMAA Terms 2017, the parties want to analyze what is required in order to proceed effectively.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.5-52
• /
• 2016

Several criticisms notwithstanding, the major political parties in South Korea seem to have developed relatively coherent 'collective identities' with regard to the unification question between South and North Korea. A comparative analysis in this paper reveals a certain pattern of convergence and divergence in unification policies among major parties. First, diachronically, the two major political parties in the history of South Korea, which I call for simplicity "conservative parties" and "democratic parties" respectively, have converged into allelosubjective attitudes towards North Korea since President Park Chung-hee's proclamation of peaceful unification plan in 1970. The governments of conservative parties since then promoted allelosubjective relations between South and North Korea, which the governments of democratic parties succeeded and developed into a partial integration policy. Though the succeeding governments of conservative parties of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye seem to have stepped back from the allelosubjective attitudes, seemingly they have not yet withdrawn to the monosubjective stance before 1970. Next, synchronically, an analysis of the platforms of major parties and their campaign promises in the 20th general election in 2016 reveals converging and diverging points in their unification policies. All the major parties show relatively allelosubjective attitudes towards North Korea, with significant differences. "Saenuri Party," the current conservative party, maintains quite bit of monosubjective attitudes towards North Korea and requires unilateral changes of North Korea in the process of unification. "Justice Party," the minor progressive party, is the most allelosubjective in that it presupposes the co-existence and mutual survival of the two Koreas in unification. In between lie "The Minjoo Party of Korea" and "The People's Party", the two parties separated in the democratic party bloc.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2001.11a
• /
• pp.93-98
• /
• 2001

If the construction delays are occurred during the project execution, the contractual parties should inquire the delay causes and the contractual obligation. Due to the compensation of damages, the interested parties and the contractual parties are placed on the adverse situation. For reasonable of the claim and dispute, the contractual parties are needed the objective and systematic procedure method to analyze the delay. The purpose of this study is to propose a formal process model considering the case of construction delay-claims.

• 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.28 no.4
• /
• pp.111-129
• /
• 2018

The foundation of arbitration is the arbitration agreement between parties. If no agreement to arbitrate exists, the parties should not send to arbitrate their disputes. In the United States, there are no provisions as to arbitrability under the Federal Arbitration Act. Before a court can enforce arbitration, it must first determine arbitrability. The general presumption is that the issue of arbitrability should be resolved by the courts. The question of whether parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration raises a question of arbitrability which is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably have provided otherwise. Determining if the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute involves inquiries into whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims, and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review how to settle the issue of arbitrability in the U.S. federal courts.