• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.57-79
• /
• 2007

Laws regarding to Arbitration in North Korea are Arbitration Act, Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, Regulations on the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission, Regulation for treatment of cases in Arbitration Commission, Rules of Hearing. North Korea has enacted the laws related to Arbitration including Arbitration Act enacted in 1995 and Foreign Economic Arbitration Act enacted in 1999. In the North Korea's planed economy system, as there will be many disputes among organizations, companies, other Institutions Arbitration Act resolves the disputes to compete the economic plan. North Korea's Arbitration Act is different from Normal Arbitration Acts in particular other socialist states in view of arbitration agreement and selection of arbitrator and functions as the tools controlling the members of North Korea and have the characteristics such as national arbitration system and mixture of criminal trial and governmental control and strict legal control system on violent acts in North Korea's plan and plan regulation. And North Korea's Arbitration Act deals with the civil disputes and limits the parties and subject matter of arbitration. The parties in dispute such as organizations, companies, other Institutions could apply for arbitration to Central Arbitration Body and Provincial (City under the direct control of Government) Arbitration Body and Sectional Arbitration Body. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the enhancement of the understanding arbitration in North Korea by studying the clauses in the Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

Arbitration is the system of resolving disputes not by the adjudication of a national court but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators. To settle disputes by arbitration, it should be concluded that the arbitration agreement which is implied that the parties agree to submit to the arbitral award about all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationships. It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution. Because arbitration is a private proceeding with public consequences that some types of dispute are reserved for national courts, whose proceedings are generally in the public domain. It is this sense that they may not be the object of arbitration. After all, it could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-83
• /
• 2014

In the past, the mention of "international arbitration" would have brought to mind only commercial arbitration. However, the frequency of investment treaty arbitration has seen remarkable grow thanks to the rise of globalization and the spread of multi-national corporations. Reflecting on the current state of the world, this paper introduces the meaning, characteristics, and differences between commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration in the context of procedural considerations. To this end, this paper examines some major procedural differences among the said types of arbitration, by dividing commercial arbitration into institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration, and dividing investment treaty arbitration into ICSID arbitration and UNCITRAL Rules arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2007

The role of ICC Court of Arbitration in ICC Arbitration is critical in maintaining the good reputation and worldwide recognition. While most arbitration institutions are the products of regional on national private associations, which play a relatively limited role in appointing or confirming the arbitrators, the Court of Arbitration is not only international in the appointment of arbitrators through the each National Committee, but also intervene in the confirmation of the prospective arbitrators proposed by the parties. Thus the ICC Arbitration is undoubtedly the most highly-supervised form of institutional arbitration available. The purpose of this paper is to examine the appointment and confirmation system of ICC Arbitration, to find the distinctive features of the ICC Rules of Arbitration and to check how to apply the features in the Rules of International Arbitration for the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB Rules). Although the KCAB Rules have inherent limitations in the appointment of the arbitrators comparing with the ICC Court. They do not have any confirmation system of the arbitrator proposed by the parties. Although no arbitral institutions is in a position to guarantee completely the ultimate quality and efficacy of the process, the ICC, more than any other institution has historically endeavored to do so through a combination of the efforts of its International Court of Arbitration and National Committees. Composed of legal professionals of more than 75 nationalities, the Court, with the support of its permanent Secretariat in Paris, brings to bear on the decisions that it is responsibility to make the collective and disparate knowledge and experience of a multinational body. Therefore, if the KCAB wants to attract many international disputes, it should try to benchmark the ICC Rules of Arbitration, expecially the Article 9, to secure the prominent arbitrators throughout the world, even though a lot of limitations are exist. The positive role of the ICC Court of Arbitration gives us very important signal.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.185-212
• /
• 2013

In this paper, a conceptual model of legal culture based on Ehrlich's "living law" theory and Cole's social-cultural explanation can explain the low utilization rates of arbitration of Japan and the high utilization rates of arbitration in the United States, simultaneously. This model highlights the clash between social norms and legal provisions in Japan. Japan has developed a two-tiered system of dispute resolution. At the official level, Japanese people accept the legal system imposed by the outside world. But, at a deeper level, they utilize diverse forms of informal dispute resolution mechanisms, such as reconcilement and conciliation, reflecting their own social norms. In contrast, there is no conflict between social norms and legal provisions in United States. This study may show that there are distinctions between American-style arbitration and Japanese-style arbitration, reflecting their own respective social norms. The question of reconciliation between the American style of arbitration and the Japanese style of arbitration can be resolved by an international arbitrator.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.97-119
• /
• 2008

The reluctance of Latin American countries to practice international arbitration is not a new topic in international law. This reluctance historically based on Calvo Doctrine provoked not only the absence of Latin American countries from the major international commercial arbitration conventions, but obsolete national arbitration legislation. Recently, however, these countries have undertaken major steps showing that the region is no longer reluctant to practice international commercial arbitration. Most Latin American countries have ratified the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("Washington Convention") and the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration ("Panama Convention"). The majority of Latin American countries have also modified and adapted their national legislation on arbitration to the UNCITRAL model law. Even judiciary has been following this pro-arbitration. This article will focus on some of these factors provoking the acceptance of international commercial arbitration in Latin America to trace the common trends and characteristics in an attempt to understand better how international arbitration set on its place firmly. For this purpose we selected five countries, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela, to analyse legislations and jurisprudence. Latin America is ready to challenge any obstacles to promote arbitration as alternative methods of judicial resolution. There is an ever-increasing number of international arbitration in Latin America. Both practitioners and judiciary have shown desires to promote the resolution of disputes by arbitration and used the legal instruments to ensure that process interpreting and applying legislations for pro-arbitration. Even there remains Calvo Doctrine's culture in Latin America still now, it should be certain this culture will disappear from the conduct of international arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.81-119
• /
• 2006

The parties in the trade can have full autonomy and can resolve disputes independently, impartially and without delay by selecting arbitration by agreement. Korea and Japan had revised their Arbitration Laws to incorporate as many provisions of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as possible. Japan had amended its century-old arbitration law, becoming the 45th country to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on International commercial arbitration. New Arbitration Law was enacted as Law No.138 of 2003 and effective on March 1, 2004, is applicable to both national and international arbitration. Korea had amended its arbitration law on December 31, 1999 and its New Arbitration Law incorporates the most of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as Japan. Arbitration must be popular in resolving international commercial disputes in Northeast Asian bloc in order to increase the volume of intra-trade in the Northeast Asian bloc. But in order for the parties to make use of arbitration in the bloc, the arbitration laws of nations in the bloc must have similarity and unification. As Korea and Japan playes important roles in the bloc, both nations's arbitration laws must be studied in view of similarity and difference to unify both nations' arbitration laws by way of showing an example. Therefore, this paper deals with both nations' arbitration laws in view of comparative law to unify their arbitration laws and Northeast Asian Nations' arbitration laws.