• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.93-111
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the composition of the arbitration costs in ICC Rule of Arbitration and to examine how each item of the costs is determined. Furthermore this author tired to find the principles or criteria deciding which of the party should bear them or in what proportion they shall be home by the parties in Article 31. Thus this author could find three common approaches. First, all of the costs are home by the losing party, or Second, all of the costs are allocated in proportion to the result of award in each case. Third, all of the costs determined by the Court as shared equally by the parties and both parties bear their own costs. But, both parties may include their intention in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. For example if the parties with to ensure that the arbitration costs be shared equally and that the arbitrator make no allocation of costs and fees, the following sentence could be added to the arbitration clause. "All costs and expenses of the arbitrators (and the arbitral institution) shall be home by the parties equally; each party shall bear the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, of its own counsel, experts, witnesses and preparation and presentation of its case."

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.269-291
• /
• 1998

Change of circumstances subsequent to formation of international business contract raises two issues on both parties' obligation to perform business transaction concerned. One is impossibility of performance due to events beyond control of parties and the other is adaption of contract. In Anglo-American Law such an impossibility of performance is provided by the doctrine of Frustration and the doctrine of Practicability(UCC 2-615). In practice a "force majeure" clause should be included in contract defining the parties' mutual rights and duties if certain events beyond their control occur to safeguard themselves against possible impossibility. On the other hand the tendency of international trade is that alongside sales contracts, there are contract for supplies, for furnishing raw materials, for building industrial complexes, and transferring technology. One characteristic of these agreements is their duration. For in order to carry out these agreements, it is necessary to complete a series of closely interrelated operations which, in the normal course of events, take place over a number of years. It is often difficult for the parties, when finalizing their contract, to have a full grasp of all of the factors governing their relations. With a view to resolving difficulties such as compromise the continuous performance of a contract, parties may insert a regulatory clause in their contract providing for intervention by a third person after stating in specific and detailed fashion the circumstances in which their contract may be adapted.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2012

Arbitration provides quicker resolution and may also limit the erosion of business relationships that is often the result of prolonged litigation. The process of arbitration typically involves four phases: 1) selection of arbitrator(s) and opening statement of positions by the parties; 2) rebuttal of opposing positions; 3) interviews, hearings, and information gathering; and 4) rendering of a decision and issuance of the arbitrator's award. A distinctive feature of arbitration is the party's ability to select the arbitrator and the process and rules that will be followed at the hearing. Once that process has been completed, the parties are in the hands of the arbitrator or tribunal. The arbitrator's duty goes on the arbitration procedure efficiently and renders arbitration award. This article discussed various ways the arbitrator leads to a shorter, less risky arbitration, which benefits the parties. We recommend the arbitrator the following comments; Before the hearing the arbitrator decides to whether an arbitration agreement is valid, and a scope of authorities of him in advance. In the hearing, the arbitrator gives both parties a sufficient opportunity to produce evidence, witnesses, and make their arguments. Lastly, the arbitrator need to be cautious in guiding the parties toward an amicable settlement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2008

When several parties are involved in a dispute, it is usually considered desirable that the issues should be dealt with in the same proceedings, rather than in a series of separate proceedings. This saves time and money. It avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions on the same issues of law and fact, since all issues are determined by the same tribunal at the same time. Where there is a multi-party arbitration, it may be because there are several parties to one contract, or it may be because there are several contracts with different parties that have a bearing on the matters in dispute. In international trade and commerce, for individuals, corporations or state agencies to join together in a joint venture or consortium or in some other legal relationship of this kind, in order to enter into a contract with another party or parties, where such a contract contains an arbitration clause and a dispute arises, the members of the consortium or joint venture may decided that they would each like to appoint an arbitrator. A different problem arises where there are several contracts with different parties, each of which has a bearing on the issues in dispute. A major international construction project is likely to involve not only the employer and the main contractor, but also a host of special suppliers and sub-contractors. Each of them will be operating under different contracts often with different choice of law and arbitration clauses. The appointment of the arbitrator or the composition of the arbitral tribunal should be in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The parties have to be equally treated in the constituting of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral proceedings. However, the right of the parties to nominate a member of the arbitral tribunal could be taken away from them, if they are subject to the restrictions by means of the law of the country where the arbitration is taking place. That is, multiple parties jointly should nominate one arbitrator, where there they have to exercise their substantive right in common, or one of them exert his substantive right, then it has an effect on another parties, or they, whether as claimant or as respondent, get the same or similar treatment in the arbitral procedure. Therefore it is necessary to intend to settle multi-party disputes quickly and efficiently.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 2002

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a system to settle disputes without having to pursue a judgment through the courts; it provides an alternative to conventional judicial proceedings. As such, ADR is available to resolve a wide range of disputes, ranging from minor disagreements between neighbors to contracts involving millions of dollars. One can say there has been “efficient resolution of a dispute” only when it has been settled rapidly and finally to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, inexpensively and in a transparent manner. In this respect, ADR may well be regarded as the most efficient method to resolve disputes. In order to establish and disseminate ADR as a practical dispute-settlement procedure, first, governmental financial support is necessary, rather than having to depend upon fees collected from the disputing parties. At the same time, various inducement policies also are required. The most important factor is to make people aware of the fact that ADR is a low-cost, speedy system and more practical compared with other procedures. Second, cooperation from legal circles, lawyers in particular, is absolutely necessary. If disputes become serious, the general public normally seeks out lawyers for advice. Third, disputing parties have to be convinced of the benefits of ADR, secure in the knowledge that ADR will provide them not only with economic benefit but also a satisfactory result. Diverse ADR procedures should be developed and implemented to facilitate participation in a comfortable atmosphere with a mutually friendly relationship. The most important factor in achieving the wider use of ADR, which is attracting more attention of late, is the expectation that it will bring a satisfactory resolution to the related parties in dispute. The trend of seeking a new dispute-settlement method also reflects the changing sense of values in society today. Therefore, one specific method is not suitable for all kinds of disputes. A proper system should offer different approaches according to the pattern and type of dispute and the parties concerned. In selecting a dispute-resolution system, several factors have to be considered - the relationship between the parties, their financial situations, the necessity of maintaining confidentiality, urgency for settlement, etc. In the light of all these, it is desirable for the disputing parties to select the most appropriate of the available systems, not blindly turning to the courts, if and when a dispute arises.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2009

Concepts of mediation and conciliation as alternative dispute resolutions are often confusingly used. As to what is meant by mediation and conciliation, there is no uniform legal definition. However, there has been a distinction between two methods of dispute settlement under the international law (UN Charter, WTO DSU, NAFTA, EU mediation directive, WIPO Mediation Rules) although there is no clear definition on the terms of mediation and conciliation. And also under the domestic law such as U.K, France, Germany, a clear distinction has been made between two terms. Mediation means a facilitated negotiation between two parties through the intervention of a third party. A third and neutral party (mediator) help the parties in dispute to find their solution by managing a certain mediation protocol and facilitating communication between the parties while in conciliation, a third party evaluative the case and can suggest the parties a legally non-binding solution. Once the parties accept it, it becomes binding between them. However, in the U.S,, it seems that there is no practical use of distinguishing mediation and conciliation. The term of mediation is more commonly used than the term of conciliation and it has two kinds of mediation such as facilitative and evaluative mediation. Korea's conciliation system is close to conciliation or evaluative mediation. In conclusion, what is distinct between mediation and conciliation is the role of third party. If a neutral third party takes a role of advisor or facilitator, then he or she may employ a proper protocol to help the parties to find themselves their solution (mediation) while if a neutral person plays a role of evaluator, then he or she listens to the parties and suggest a solution to them (conciliation).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.55-76
• /
• 2013

This study aims to analyze the main features of Mongolian arbitration system compared with Korean Arbitration Law which was revised under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law. On the basis of this comparative study, certain differences are suggested: First, the environment of Mongolian arbitration is still insufficient in terms of its operation and usage at the international level. Second, the Mongol National Arbitration Court has established Ad-hoc Arbitration Rules and has promoted Ad-hoc Arbitration although it is an institutional arbitration organization. Third, the arbitration objects are defined as the types of tangible and intangible assets in Mongolia which are different from those of the Korean Arbitration Law. Accordingly, court and officer disputes, family disputes, labor-management relations, and criminal matters are covered by the arbitration objects. Fourth, Mongol Arbitration Law specifies the following persons disqualified for arbitrator appointment: the member of the Constitutional Court, judge, procurator, inquiry officer, investigator, court decision enforcement officer, attorney, or notary who has previously rendered legal service to any party of the disputes, and any officials who are prohibited by laws to be engaged in positions above the scope of their duties. Fifth, the arbitrator selection and appointment criteria should be documented, and the arbitrator should have the ability to resolve the disputes independently and fairly and achieve concord from both parties. Sixth, if there is no agreement between the parties, the arbitration language should be Mongolian, and the arbitral tribunal has no power to decide on it. Seventh, despite the agreement for a documentary hearing between the parties, there should be provided opportunities for an oral hearing if either of the parties requires it. Eighth, if the parties do not understand the language of the arbitration, the parties can directly ask the translation service. They should also keep secrets in the process of arbitration. Ninth, the cancellation of arbitral award is allowed by the application of the parties, not by the authority of the court. Except for the nine differences above, the Mongolian arbitration system is similar to that of the Korean Arbitration Law. This paper serves to contribute to the furtherance in trade relationship between Mongolia and Korea after the rapid and efficient resolution of disputes.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제4권2호
• /
• pp.103-132
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to observe whether intergenerational differences exist in support among major Korean political parties and, if so, how they exist, based on the results of the survey conducted nationwide. To achieve the purpose of the study, a questionnaire was prepared based on conjoint analysis, and the collected data was analyzed by applying a random parameter logit model. The main results of model analysis are summarized as follows. First, among the policy variables, statistically significant results were observed in the generation of 20s and 30s for the education variable. It was found that both 20s and 30s aimed for equal education at a higher level than other generations. Especially, the highest intensity aim for equal education culture was observed in the 20s. Second, the coefficients of major political parties were observed with a high level of statistical significance. This appears to be a result suggesting that voters decide on their voting behavior through thorough policy comparisons in addition to comprehensive consideration on various current issues. Third, a clear support for conservative parties was observed in the generation of 20s. A clear and intense distribution of preference for political parties classified as conservatives was observed in the 20s generation, which can be said to be mainly college students. This seems to be a profound founding related to the issue of "conservatization of the 20s," which has recently become a hot topic in Korean society. Fourth, a high level of support for progressive parties was observed in the 30s and 40s. The Justice Party can be classified as a minority party in the National Assembly House as of January 2019. Nevertheless, it was maintained at a relatively high level in national recognition, and it is presumed that the background was high level of support from the 30s and 40s. Fifth, a large level of standard deviation was observed in the preference for conservative parties in the 50s. This means that some respondents who are in their 50s or older strongly support the Liberty Korea Party, and some respondents in the same generation strongly disapprove it. Due to this countervailing power, it seems that the average support level for the Liberal Korean Party is low in the generations of 50s and older.?

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2006

The Pennzoil case and the SME case illustrate the difficulties which originate from inadequate drafting of letters of intent. In both cases the judges had to face the crucial question as to whether or not a given letter of intent had a binding nature; they had in other words to decide whether the wills expressed in such letters still belonged to the pre-contractual stage, or whether their incorporation into a pre-contractual document meant that negotiations were over and binding obligations had already arisen for the parties. In other words, some problems may occur when a party has documented a stage in the negotiations by letters of intent. The letters may well explicitly spell out if, and to what extent, the parties should be bound by what they have already agreed or to carry on negotiations in order to reach the final contract. But if the letters are silent, some problems would arise. Contracting parties are, therefore, well advised to spell out if, and to what extent, they should be bound by such preliminary agreements. Here again, it might be prudent to explicitly set forth that the parties should not be bound until there is a final written contract signed by authorized representatives of the parties but that they shall abstain from such measures which may defeat their stated objective to reach final agreement, e.g. by diminishing the value of performance under the contemplated contract.

• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• 제21권4호
• /
• pp.343-384
• /
• 2017

We assess the outcomes for the negotiating parties in the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the remaining eleven parties go ahead with the agreement as negotiated without the United States, as compared to the outcomes under the original twelve-member agreement signed in October 2016. We find that the eleven-party agreement, now renamed as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), is a much smaller deal than the twelve-party one, but that some parties do better without the United States in the deal, in particular those in the Western Hemisphere - Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Peru. For the politically relevant medium term, the United States stands to be less well-off outside the TPP than inside. Since provisional deals can be in place for a long time, the results of this study suggest that the eleven parties are better off to implement the CPTPP, leaving aside the controversial governance elements, the implications of which for national interests are unclear and which, in any event, may be substantially affected by parallel bilateral negotiations between individual CPTPP parties and the United States.