• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2016

In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.33
• /
• pp.178-201
• /
• 2014

China National People's Congress has passed the bill to combine the Marine Law Enforcement into "State Oceanic Administration People's Republic of China". This bill was intended to resolve the overlapping jurisdiction and disputes caused in ocean territory in nearby countries. The purpose of reorganizing the administration was to combine the dispersed organization into one group. This new big administration was basically organized to increase the power of China marine state on the long-term. The reorganization plan is to group General Administration of Customs, China Marine Surveillance, Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, and Border Control Department into one State Oceanic Administration. The new state Oceanic Administration carries the authority to protect rights and enforce the marine law supported by Public Security Bureau. Korea Coast Guard has been cooperating with China Marine Surveillance since 1998 when the first pact was made. The next step expanded to General Administration of Customs. Currently working with Regional Maritime Law Enforcement organizations dealing mostly with illegal Chinese fishing boats and IEODO conflict. In order to solve the problems we face today is to observe the process of the New China Coast Guard administration, analysing the effects that could be caused by the change and to keep close cooperation between the new administrations.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 1999

Although recently vigorous studies on environmental crime have contribute criminal respects to be advanced in our country, most of them are focused on German discussions about the theory of environmental crime or environmental criminal law. As each countries in criminal legislation for environmental protection have some distinctive characteristics not found in others, the study which is more helpful to regulate environmental crime can be extend to other country in the view of comparative law. Thus this Article overviews especially the environmental criminal enforcement program involving civil and administrative enforcement in the United States. Notwithstanding that enforcement is an evolving phenomenon that only recently appeared on the scene, there is widespread public support for it. Once viewed as mere economic or regulatory offence lacking an element of moral delict, environmental crimes now provoke moral outrage and prompt demands for severe sanction and strict enforcement. Many major provisions of modem environmental acts that imposed criminal liability have been added or significantly restructured during the last decade. Notable among them are the imposition of the felony penalties for federal environmental crimes and the enactment of the endangerment crime in federal environmental law. This Article approaches the characteristics of environmental criminal enforcement form introducing major federal environmental acts. It develops the result that, considering the difference that exist between Korea and United States in environmental criminal law, our proper environmental regulatory framework can be constituted.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2021

England is a significant base for international trade in Europe, and dispute resolution through arbitration is active. Therefore, due to the geographical relationship with the European continent, the settlement of trade transactions and disputes with European countries is one of the most essential tasks. In this regard, arbitration procedures in England have been actively used for a long time. In England, dispute resolution methods through arbitration have been developed centered on merchant groups such as guilds from the 16th century and have been actively used until today. However, the arbitration procedure also had the characteristics of the common law because there was no legislation related to arbitration. Therefore, arbitration based on common law was carried out until the first half of the 19th century. In the 'Arbitration Act 1889', two types of arbitration systems, 'common law arbitration' and 'statutory arbitration' coexisted. However, in the arbitration procedure, according to the newly enacted 'Arbitration Act 1889', the arbitration agreement was binding from the time the arbitration agreement was reached. There was a way to select an arbitrator even if it was not explicitly stipulated in the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration award was quickly enforced. Arbitration under contract was preferred over common law arbitration, where withdrawal and revocation of awards were possible. However, in response to these provisions, the England courts considered the arbitration system to deprive the courts of jurisdiction, while a strengthened judicial review of arbitration procedures was done. In particular, England unified the arbitration-related laws, which had been scattered for a long time, adopted the model law, and enacted the 'Arbitration Act 1996'. Under the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 'Arbitration Act 1996', Section 66 deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards. Section 2 of the 'Arbitration Act 1950' is inherited and used as it is. Second, it deals with the execution of arbitral awards under the New York Convention: Article 100 (New York Convention), Section 101 (Approval and Enforcement of Awards), Section 102 (Evidence Presented by a Party Seeking Recognition and Enforcement), and Section 103 (Provides Matters Concerning Rejection Recognition and Enforcement).

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2017

This article tried to describe the laws concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in Indonesia. This issue is relevant in the light of frequent curiosity of foreign commentators, business communities, practicing lawyers, concerning the arbitration in Indonesia, in particular its enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. The main laws on arbitration analyzed were, firstly, the Indonesian law on arbitration, namely Law No 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Presidential Regulation No 34 of 1981 concerning the Ratification of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. The provisions of Law of 1999 analyzed were confined to its international provisions on arbitration, in particular the requirements for the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards and also the requirement that the awards do not violate Indonesian public policy. The problem with the Indonesian arbitration law (and the courts' practice) were that no provisions which provided guidance or meaning with regard to public policy. The absence or lack of guidance or definition on public policy had some times confused lawyers or the parties in dispute fearing that their arbitration awards would not be enforced due to the violation of public policy. Secondly was the different opinion of two Indonesian arbitration experts, Prof. Sudargo Gautama and Prof. Priyatna Abdurrasyid. Both scholars had rather different opinions with regard to the meaning of public policy in Indonesia. Thirdly was a recent case law, Astro Nusantara Bv et.al., vs PT Ayunda Primamitra Case (2010) decided by the Indonesian Supreme Court with regard to the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. This article concluded that the Indonesian court, in particular the Central of Jakarta Court, so far have given its support that the execution of foreign awards was duly enforced.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.417-426
• /
• 2021

Objectives: The purpose of the Act is to comprehensively consider the legislative notice of the Enforcement Decree of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act for each important issue in terms of system, content, and execution. Methods: We examine the legislative notice of the Enforcement Decree of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act in-depth from the perspective of the effectiveness of disaster prevention, consistency of the legal system, and harmony with legal principles. Results: The proposed Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Punishment of Serious Accidents hardly resolves the uncertainties of the law, and there are many aspects that are unclear in the enforcement ordinance itself and that do not comply with constitutional principles. As a result, it is judged that it is difficult to for it to serve as an accident prevention standard due to its low predictability and that it will be difficult to achieve effectiveness in accident prevention. Conclusions: Ultimately, the law itself should be extensively reorganized in order to ensure universal and sufficient effectiveness, including the abolition of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. In the short term, even the Enforcement Decree of the Act should be reorganized and supplemented in accordance with the law and safety principles.

• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.365-369
• /
• 2021

Background: Law enforcement communications (i.e., 911 dispatch and call takers) is a challenging and stressful occupation. The purpose of this study is to identify the main stressors associated with employment in law enforcement communications, and to identify and provide context to how these stressors affect workers' health and wellbeing. Methods: This research study included focus groups with 23 call takers and 911 dispatchers employed by a large, urban law enforcement agency in 2018. Thematic analyses were conducted to identify trends. Results: Four themes of stressors emerged (i.e., the high stakes nature of some 911 calls for service, understaffing, supervisor-related stress, and recruiting practice). Two health-related themes emerged as being occupation-related: weight gain and poor sleep patterns/insufficient sleep). Specifically, participants reported negative eating habits resulting in weight gain and obesity, lack of sleep and irregular sleep schedules, and development of hypertension and/or diabetes since beginning their jobs. Conclusion: Law enforcement communications professionals experience a number of the same stressors facing law enforcement officers in patrol. These stressors, combined with the sedentary nature of the job, could result in long-term, chronic health problems.