• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• 제33권3호
• /
• pp.107-128
• /
• 2023

International arbitration is a widely preferred alternative dispute resolution mechanism for many desirable characteristics, such as, party autonomy, procedural flexibility, ability of parties to select their arbitrators, as well as, finality of arbitral awards, among others. However, because arbitral tribunals derive their authority and jurisdiction from the parties' agreement(s) to arbitrate their dispute(s), arbitral tribunals lack coercive powers that national courts have. At times, arbitral tribunals have to deal with circumstances of non-production and/or spoliation of evidence, and due to the lack of coercive authority, it may be challenging to compel such recalcitrant parties to produce the relevant evidence and/or witnesses. Therefore, adverse inferences drawn against the recalcitrant parties may be the most effective sanctions. This article explores the sources of authority for arbitral tribunals to make such adverse inferences and argues for a precise set of rules or standard to be consistently applied by the arbitral tribunals in order to increase predictability in arbitral proceedings. Additionally, some of the critical issues when considering adverse inferences as sanctions are discussed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.11-52
• /
• 2010

Medical Dispute Arbitration Law had been debated on its legislation several times since Korean Medical Association's submission of the bill to the National Assembly in 1988, eventually in December, 2009, passed the National Assembly Standing Committee and was laid before the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and thus its legislation is now near at hand. During the long process, it has provided a hot issue with our society. And yet, Medical Dispute Arbitration Law has differed considerably in legislative content depending on the main body of proceeding the enactment, which subsequently was given the mixed comments of 'Act on Malpractice-related Damage Relief' or 'Medical Indemnity Act', and this legislative bill also cannot be free from this debate. It is desirable that medical disputes between doctors and patients be resolved through conciliation between the parties concerned. But, because reaching a compromise is difficult owing to deep emotional conflicts between the parties, difficulties in investigating a cause and requiring a high amount of settlement money, etc., it is inevitable to seek a resolution by third party intervention. By the way, such an arbitration by third party is based on the compromise of the interested parties and thus has a limitation of not being able to satisfy both parties completely. Therefore, the legislative bill made for arbitration of medical disputes between the parties will have to prepare an institutional system for the parties to easily understand and accept. Also, problems occurred in the legislative bill will have to be corrected through an in-depth discussion in order for the legislative bill to work as an effective system.

• The KIPS Transactions:PartC
• /
• 제10C권5호
• /
• pp.541-548
• /
• 2003

A fair exchange protocol enable two parties to exchange secrets with fairness, so that neither can gain any information advantage by quitting prematurely or otherwise misbehaving. Therefore a fair exchange is the most important for electronic transactions between untrusted parties. To design new fair exchange, after describing basic concepts, definitions and existing protocols and designing a non-interactive OT protocol using ELGamal's public key system, I will design new protocol to support fair exchange. In my designed new protocol, untrusted parties exchange secrets obliviously and verify that their received secrets are true by using transformed Zero Knowledge Interactive Proof extended to duplex. At this time, concerned two parties can't decrypt the other's ciphertext. .After all of the steps, two parties can do it. It is the most important to provide perfect fairness and anonymity to untrusted parties in this protocol.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• 제59권
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the several points at issue in international technology transfer contract from licensor's and licensee's perspectives, and to refer them when the licensor and the licensee draw up the contract. This author analyzed the critical points of the related provisions of ICC Model International Technology Transfer Contract(2009) by citing the explanations of the Introduction of the Model Contract. The provisions of the Model Contract are generally divided into two categolies; specific conditions and general conditions. This author selected four topics in the specific conditions; Contents of the Contract, Royalty, Modification and/or Improvements of Products, and Territory and Competition. Likewise this author selected three topics in the general conditions; Resolutions of Disputes, Applicable Law and Taxes. Both parties need to be mindful of the following points in the above topics, when they draw up the contract. First, both parties should make the definitions of special terminologies clear, which are included in the Contract. Second, before the parties sign the Contract, they should check any approvals to be necessary by the both countries' governments. Third, for the calculation of the royalty, they should clear the criteria, the scope, and the object. Fourth, as the local laws or regional laws regarding the territory limitation and taxation are mandatory, any provisions of the Contract should not be inconsistent with them. Therefore, both parties should check before-hand the local laws or rules related with the provisions of the Contract. Fifth, when the parties draw up the Contract, they should examine the Provisions of Dispute Resolution in consideration of the Governing Law. Thus both parties decide to make the technology transfer contract, the three aspects namely profitability, legal conflict with mandatory rules, and sustainability of the business resulting from the Contract should be examined in advance, and then proceed the business using the technology transfer.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.163-191
• /
• 1989

The accident of the midair collision, passengers' falling or goods' dropping occurs or supersonic aircraft make a sonic boom during their conveying passengers or goods to the destination. The accident in transmit damages the their parties on the surface or their properties. In these cases, the third parties who were harmed to their lives or properties have the right to claim damages against the air carrier who caused them. These matters have become one of the important things since aircraft conveyed passengers and goods. Therefore, it is a great concern to settle these matters by law. But the Safety of the present aircraft has been much increased and the aircraft have become larger in size. Its flight altitude became higher than before. So the relationship of the aircraft to the third parties is much different from that of the earlier aircraft. The air transport is now indispensable to our life. It is not so easy to control these matters. In the early part of 20th century, when the third parties suffered the damage, many European countries made laws on the basis of the principle of liability without fault. But each country had a variety of its own law, and different kinds of difficulties have been brought about. Accordingly, the Rome Convention on Surface Damage (1933, 1952, 1978) has been made and revised. In spite of being revised, it contains many problems, and is not carried into effect world-wide. On the other hand, there are no regulations about the compensation of the third parties damaged in Korean existing laws. In case the damage is brought about to them, it is obviously true that the settlement of the liability of compensation for damage should be made by the general principle on the tort in domestic laws. At this point, it is urgent that we make a special law though the domestic legislation as a preliminary measure before we sign the international convention to save third damaged. It is desirable that we should, for the responsibility of the air carriage for the demage of the third parties on the surface, bring in the theory of the absolute liability in view of the legislation of many conutries. As the aircraft fly in the sky, their flight always contains some danger. It is very difficult to prove the fault, and the operator should suffer the principle of liability without fault or the similiar one. In case the liability without fault will be imposed upon the operator for the damage of the third parties, it is necessary to bring in the liability protection system for the protection and up upbringing of the air carriage. The Burden of danger of the air carriage will be reduced by introducing the system. A domestic legislation measure should be necessarily taken as soon as possible as a legal security measure on these matters.

• Journal of vocational education research
• /
• 제37권6호
• /
• pp.1-15
• /
• 2018

The objective of this study is to provide the basic data for the efficient operation of industry-academia partnership apprenticeship school, by analyzing the interest in the relevant policy, targeting the interested parties of school and corporation as the two main subjects operating the industry-academia partnership apprenticeship school. Using the Concerns-Based Adoption Model(CBAM) used for understanding the interested parties' interest in the adoption of a certain new changing. In the results of analysis, first, currently, the operating subjects of industry-academia partnership apprenticeship school showed the similar interest with the pattern of nonusers. In other words, currently, based on the curiosity about the relevant policy, they are interested in which roles they should perform for the successful operation. Second, when dividing the operating subjects of industry-academia partnership apprenticeship school into school parties and corporate parties, the results of examining the differences in the interest of each subject are as follows. First, in the stages except for the Stage 0(indifference), the interest of school parties was relatively higher than the one of corporate parties. It might be because the school's role is bigger in the operation of industry-academia partnership apprenticeship school, contrary to the advanced countries. In other words, in case of school parties, the overall and general understanding of the relevant policy is premised, so that their interest of each stage is higher than the one of corporate parties. Especially, the Stage 5(cooperative interest) showed the biggest differences. As the cooperation between industry and academia is the success factor of the relevant policy, it would be necessary to implant the concrete measures for industry-academia cooperation in school parties, and also to implant the importance of industry-academia cooperation in corporate parties. Next, both operating subjects showed the lowest intensity in the Stage 4(consequential interest). It means that the operating subjects' interest in the evaluation of apprenticeship students is relatively low.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.125-150
• /
• 2014

The number of dangerous goods are increasing in maritime transport. As a result, a number of nations and international organizations are establishing or amending the rules of dangerous goods. There is necessarily the transport of dangerous goods like fuel and the importance of the definition and scope of the goods is increased. In addition, the responsibility between the parties is different with the notification of the goods and its awareness of transporters. In particular, responsible clauses of the transport rule show antithetical concepts between the scope of immunity and the responsibility of a shipper concerned with wether transporters aware. This research performs two works. First, this research analyzes the definitions and scope of dangerous goods through prior research. Second, this research suggests the necessary of united interpretation of the articles through a comparative analysis on judical decisions concerned with awareness of transporters to dangerous goods. Dangerous goods have a distinctive feature and that is why responsibility and immunity between parties should be differently interpreted with general rules. Parties have duty concerned with faults on general goods and the scope of duty between parties can be specifically made. However, if there is no specific articles concerned with responsibility between parties to dangerous goods, they could confuse the responsibility on duties concerned with risk. Therefore, this research suggests solutions and necessary of the united criteria for the articles to dangerous goods through analyzing precedent cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2019

In investigating how set-off defenses matter in arbitration, one should take into account that it is not permitted against the parties' will for arbitrators to rule on the disputes that are not the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties involved, because it is considered that the parties intend to solve only the disputes which are the subject of the agreement by arbitration. Also, one should keep in mind that the parties must settle the disputes that are the subject of an arbitration agreement by arbitration when they conclude the agreement, and it is not allowed against the parties' will to resolve the disputes in other ways. The parties may agree whether the respondent can request for arbitration on the counterclaim, which is his/her claim against the claimant, and whether the respondent can raise a plea for a set-off that his/her claim against the claimant is a counter obligation. Failing on such agreement, the respondent may submit a counterclaim when his/her claim and the claimant's claim are the subject of the same arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal may rule on the counter obligation when the arbitration agreement, which becomes the basis for the claimant' claim, has an effect on the counter obligation. Where the claimant fails to raise an objection even after he/she becomes aware that the respondent has requested for arbitration or has raised a plea for set-off by providing his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement as a counterclaim or a counter obligation, the arbitral tribunal may rule on the respondent's claim against the claimant. On these occasions, the arbitral tribunal has to guarantee the parties an opportunity to defend themselves by pointing out those situations. It will meet the purposes of arbitration systems to rule out the jurisdiction of the courts when the plaintiff alleges the existence of the arbitration agreement, in case the respondent raises a plea for set-off based on his/her claim which is not the subject of the arbitration agreement in the litigation procedures. However, where the plaintiff fails to allege the existence and conducts pleading in the court with regard to the counter obligation, the court must not reject the respondent's set-off defense because of the existence of the agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2018

This article examines whether parties may agree to contractually waive the right to bring annulment proceedings. Alternately it looks at whether certain grounds of annulment may be waived. The ability for parties to resolve this issue contractually by waiving this element of Article 52(1)(b) ICSID offers a potentially powerful solution. For parties to agree beforehand to the circumstances where tribunals have not 'manifestly exceeded their power' could allow them to remove the unpredictability of annulment on this foundation. Even in the event that an ad hoc committee is against the validity of waiver, it may be possible for a party to frame this restriction as an interpretative agreement by the parties rather than strictly as waiver of a ground of annulment. Ultimately, the wish to enter into such an agreement would likely only be driven by a few exceptional commercial need or prior negative experience with the remedy of annulment. In that cases, and depending on the nature of the specific concern with annulment, a limited waiver or interpretative agreement on certain Article 52(1) ICSID grounds may certainly be appropriate.