• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.33-46
• /
• 2014

Amiable composition is a means of dispute resolution based on the arbitrator's authority to base his decision on equity. Although this method has been used frequently in the last decades of the 20th Century, the number of the published awards by amiable compositeur arbitrators is getting lower and lower. The reason(s) for unpopularity of amiable composition should be sought in its very nature, in its relationships with other institutions such as arbitration in law, equity, ex aequo et bono arbitration, other means of dispute resolution and in its role in the development of the rules specific to international commerce. A brief look at the history of law shows that the concept of equity comes to the scene every time that the rigidity of the rules of law challenges the justice. This has been the case in the 20th Century with respect to international commercial law which was deprived of specific rules. The role of amiable composition has been to contribute to the development of the rules specific to international commerce. The progressive codification of such rules in the last decades is also owed to amiable composition, which has accomplished its mission in the evolution of these rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

In the case of multiple commerce contracts in commerce, as well as multiple contracts related to it, a solution for the merging of arbitration proceedings is necessary in order to ensure uniformity of dispute resolution. Since the arbitration proceedings are based on the parties' agreement, no merging of two or more arbitration proceedings may transpire unless all parties agree. Claims of merging in arbitration proceedings lead to problems such as lack of party autonomy, resulting from lack of consent of the parties to merging, and how to appoint an arbitrator in a multilateral arbitration proceeding. Many of the major arbitration bodies have recognized the significant benefits of the terms of consolidation, and have recently revised the Arbitration Rules to include or extend existing clauses to reflect the needs of the parties. This study introduces the merging provisions of several selected major arbitration rules, such as the ICC, Switzerland, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ACICA, and UNCITRAL rules, and looks at the main similarities and differences among the rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.77-100
• /
• 2019

Third-party funding in international and domestic disputes is a fast-growing trend and it is increasingly used by large, solvent companies that simply wish to share risk in their finance. On January 10, 2017, the Civil Law Amendment Bill was passed in Singapore and on June 2017 an "Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) Bill" in Hong-Kong had a third-party funding to finance the international arbitration and other dispute resolutions expressly approved. This arbitral tribunal's expanding discretion over critical interim measure of security cost was in issue. In Essar v. Norscot (2016), the arbitrator found that the additional third-party funding costs were recoverable as "other costs of the parties." In here, the decision showed the issue of a tribunal's power over cost measures could spread out to be reviewed and broadened through the legislative process. A recent investor-state arbitration case of ICSID, RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, covered the express awarding of security for costs where a claimant was funded by a third-party funder. It seems inevitable that the volume of third-party funding industry will grow more as time goes on. The next step would be to formulate guidelines on how to determine criteria against which an application for security for costs is measured.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2014

These days, in line with the increase of opportunities in our country's firms to do transaction, large-scale M&A and investment with foreign firms incorporating arbitration clauses in the contracts have become general practice. Recently, Singapore has come to the fore as a place of arbitration and, particularly, Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) was assessed as the favored international arbitration institution uniquely in Asia at the 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, along with the ICC, LCIA, and AAA/ICDR. Therefore, the country's firms need to understand properly the international arbitration procedure of Singapore. This study examines the international arbitration system of Singapore, focusing on the arbitration procedure of the SIAC. The Center revised arbitration rules twice in 2010 and 2013, and established the Court of Arbitration of SIAC in April 2013 for the first time in Asia in pursuit of stricter neutrality and promptness. It further seeks to run the arbitration procedure fairly by selecting a third country's people as an arbitrator, while its arbitration expenses are cheaper than those of the ICC. The study believes that for the country's international arbitration institutions such as the KCAB to jump forward as a world-class international arbitration institution, the Korean government should render positive support to them, learning from Singapore which does not spare any political and financial assistance to cultivate international arbitration institutions. On the other hand, KCAB should also try hard to improve in the aspects of neutrality, fairness, and promptness and to be selected as a trustworthy international arbitration institution by firms in Asian countries.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2007

The International Chamber of Commerce has been the world's leading organization in the field of international commercial dispute resolution. Established in 1923 as the arbitration body of ICC, the International Court of Arbitration has pioneered international commercial arbitration as it is known today. The ICC International Court of Arbitration is the world's foremost institution in the resolution of international business disputes. While most arbitration institutions are regional or national in scope, the ICC Court is truly international. The purpose of this paper is to examine their advantages and to introduce main contents provided in ICC Rules of Arbitration as follows; First, before the actual merits of the case can be addressed, the Arbitral Tribunal must first draw up the Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference should include the particulars listed in the ICC Rules. Apart from the full names and description of the parties and arbitrators, the place of arbitration and a summary of the parties' respective claims, they contain particulars concerning the applicable procedural rules and any other provisions required to make the Award enforceable at law Second, the Scrutiny is a fundamental feature of ICC arbitration and is one that distinguishes it from the other major international arbitration rules. The scrutiny system has two aspects ; the first is to identify or modify the defects of form, while the second is to draw the arbitrators' attention to points of substance. Third, as soon as practicable, the Court fixes an advance on costs intended to cover the estimated fees and expenses of the arbitrators, as well as the administrative expenses of ICC. Specially, the advance on costs fixed by the Court shall be payable in equal shares by the Claimant and Respondent. Finally, the parties are also free to select the arbitrator or arbitrators of their choice. The Court or the Secretary General confirms arbitrators nominated by the parties. Taking a step forward, to upgrade the quality of the award of KCAB, it is desirable to consider how to incorporate the main contents of the ICC Arbitration into Korea Commercial Arbitration Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2015

For many years commentators have requested more active regulation of attorney ethics in international arbitration. Gradual deterioration of ethical standards in international arbitration will bring disrepute and, once its reputation is lost, it could take decades to rebuild confidence. The first reason for increasing unethical behavior is that there is no ethical code generally applied to all lawyers participating in international arbitration. A second reason might be that nobody is actively regulating attorneys in international arbitration. The first step to solve this problem is that major arbitration institutions should cooperate to enact a uniform code of conduct to be generally applied to all attorneys representing parties in international arbitration. Recently, IBA and LCIA prepared guidelines on party representation in international arbitration, and the guidelines will help attorneys follow uniform standardsof ethics. However, this will not be sufficient. There should be a regulating body to monitor attorney ethics and take sanctions against unethical attorneys accordingly. Arbitrators, who can see unethical behavior by attorneys from the closest distance, are the most appropriate regulating force rather than courts of arbitration seat or an attorney's licensing country. Of course, arbitrators don't have powers to withdraw or suspend an attorney's license, but they have powers to control attorneys'behavior within arbitration proceedings such as an allocation of fees and costs, barring the assertion of claims or defenses, drawing adverse inferences, or precluding the submission of evidence or testimony. Furthermore, arbitrators should be provided with such obligation as active control of attorney ethics. Even arbitration institutions should participate by imposing on an attorney who is a repeat offender a suspension from appearing in future arbitrations. Unethical behavior will decrease through concerted actions among arbitrational institutions to introduce a uniform code of conduct and to empower arbitrators for more efficient regulation of attorney ethics.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2013

There should be an arbitration agreement between concerned parties in order to resolve a dispute through arbitration. The arbitration procedures, including the selection of the arbitrator and the adjudicative rights of the arbitrator, are based on the arbitration agreement. In other words, the arbitration procedure and adjudication can be carried out within the boundaries of the arbitration agreement. Traditionally, the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement has been acknowledged in order to emphasize its importance and to clearly separate it from the contract. Today, when the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement is well established, overemphasizing this separability could hamper its effectiveness and the autonomy of the parties. Moreover, arbitration agreements in the past were required to be written, clarifying the existence of the agreement and determining the scope of its validity. Further, an arbitration agreement was considered as narrowly as possible. However, since arbitration has become a generalized resolution for disputes, the formal or content requirements should be reconsidered. In terms of validity, the subjective and objective scope should necessarily be extended as a means to resolve disputes related to an arbitration agreement and reduce the resolution cost and duration. Under this perspective, the arbitration theory should now focus on arbitration agreements rather than the place of arbitration. We should break from the nationalistic view, which understands that the arbitration system is a part of the national legal system and that arbitration is allowed solely by permission of the nation. Instead, we should extensively reinterpret the subject of arbitration agreement and its range of effects so that disputes can be resolved between the concerned parties under a single procedure and norm, a necessary step forward. Moreover, in spite of the positive contribution and role of the New York Convention toward the establishment and development of the international arbitration system, there should be an effort to overcome its deterioration. As mentioned in the recommendations regarding the interpretation of the arbitration agreement in the New York Convention in 2006, we should begin by striving to match the Convention as a means of interpretation with the changes of the twenty-first century. Ultimately, we should meet the demands of the new era through amendments to the Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.161-182
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this paper is to examine the applicability of the UNIDROIT Principle in international commercial arbitration. For this purpose, I have studies the basic two characters of this Principles: One is of general rule(principle); Another is of international and commercial character. According to CISG, questions concerning matters governed by the CISG which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles, so this Principles will cover many questions which are not expressly settled in the applicable law, by gap-filing, analogy or usage. In the preamble of this Principles, there are five cases in which the Principles shall be applied or may be applied. If the disputes are submitted to the any national court, the application of this Principles would be restricted because of the mandatory rules of national, international or supranational origin. But the disputes are submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator would have more discretional powers to apply the Principles than the judge. The reason is that in the arbitration, the arbitrators do not bear obligation to act in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of rules of private international law. I also examined the applicability of the Principles in cases which there are no mentions in preamble: When the international arbitrators choose the Principles; When the arbitrators decide ex aequo et bono; When the both parties have not chosen the governing law; When there are gaps in domestic law chosen by the parties; When the applicable domestic law is insufficient. In all these cases, the Principles may be applied more easily and conveniently in arbitration than in litigation. Thus to envisage the application of this Principle in international arbitration, first both parties in international commercial contracts should incorporate this Principle as a governing law in their contracts, and second, the arbitrators should try to apply this Principles in their arbitrations by choice, analogy, general principles or usage.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.32
• /
• 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."