본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

The Finality of Arbitral Awards: The U.S. Practices

하충룡
한국중재학회 (Korean Association Of Arbitration Studies(Kaas))|2020.09|중재연구 (JOURNAL OF ARBITRATION STUDIES)|제30권 제3호|pp. 3-19

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

EnforceabilityCourt InterventionFinality of Arbitral Award
주제분류무역학

초록

With the advent of the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the U.S. and an increase in trade volume between the two countries, the possibility of commercial disputes has escalated among international merchants. It has been well-known that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution is an efficient way to resolve international commercial disputes. When arbitral awards are enforced in the judicial system, the court will inevitably have to be involved with the enforcement procedures. The court is a typical legal entity to confirm arbitral awards. Through a confirmation process, the winning party obtains the same legal status of final judgment rendered by the court. However, a winning party in arbitration will have to overcome a legal hurdle in the enforcement process of arbitral awards. This article aims to investigate how the courts control the arbitration practices and what the basic legal issues in the enforcement of arbitral awards are. The US Federal Arbitration Act is investigated, while relevant cases are reviewed and updated for legal analysis.

Abstract

With the advent of the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the U.S. and an increase in trade volume between the two countries, the possibility of commercial disputes has escalated among international merchants. It has been well-known that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution is an efficient way to resolve international commercial disputes. When arbitral awards are enforced in the judicial system, the court will inevitably have to be involved with the enforcement procedures. The court is a typical legal entity to confirm arbitral awards. Through a confirmation process, the winning party obtains the same legal status of final judgment rendered by the court. However, a winning party in arbitration will have to overcome a legal hurdle in the enforcement process of arbitral awards. This article aims to investigate how the courts control the arbitration practices and what the basic legal issues in the enforcement of arbitral awards are. The US Federal Arbitration Act is investigated, while relevant cases are reviewed and updated for legal analysis.

참고문헌 (35)

  1. "9 U.S.C.A. § 9(2005)", ~
  2. "9 U.S.C.A. §10(a)(2005)", ~
  3. "Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995)", ~
  4. "Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925, 933 (10th Cir. 2001)", ~
  5. "Brown v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 211 F.3d 1217, 1223 (11th Cir. 2000)", ~
  6. "Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 1984)", ~
  7. "Gateway Technologies, Inc v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 64 F.3d 993, 996(1995)", ~
  8. "Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197, 201 (1998)", ~
  9. "James W. BONAR and Beverly J. Bonar v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., 835 F.2d 1378, (1988)", ~
  10. "LaPine Technology Corp. v. Kyocera Corp., 130 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 1997)", ~
  11. "LaPrade v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 246 F.3d 702, 706 (D.C.Cir.2001)", ~
  12. "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker, 808 F.2d 930, 933 (1986)", ~
  13. "Michael LESSIN v. Merrill LYNCH, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Brett Bernstein, 481 F.3d 813, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (2007)", ~
  14. "Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985)", ~
  15. "Ottley v. Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373, 376 (2d Cir. 1987)", ~
  16. "Paula ANDREWS, COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, appellant., 120 A.D.3d 1227(2014)", ~
  17. "SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, State of NEW YORK, 420 F.Supp.3d 89, (2019)", ~
  18. "TEAMSTERS LOCAL 177 v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, 966 F.3d 245, (United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.2020)", ~
  19. "United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. 484 U.S. 29, 43 (1987)", ~
  20. "Volt Info. Sciences, Inc., 489 U.S. 468 469(1989)", ~
  21. "Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436 (1953)", ~
  22. "W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 766 (1983)", ~
  23. "Bedikian, Alternative Dispute Resolution, 53 Wayne Law. Review. 73 (2007)", ~
  24. "Gilbert, Kimberly D., 29 SFKULR 265, 269 Suffolk University Law Review, 1995", ~
  25. "Kim, Anne S., Rent-a-Judges and the Cost of Selling Justice, 44 Duke Law. Journal. 166, 1994", ~
  26. Kissling Matthew R., "A SURE AND EXPEDITED RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES”:a1 THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT AND THE ONE-YEAR REQUIREMENT FOR SUMMARY CONFIRMATION OF ARBITRATION AWARDS", Case W. Res. :Law. Review, 60, pp.889~ (2010)
  27. Lawrence R. Mills, "Vacating Arbitration Awards", Disp. Resol. Mag, (Summer) (2005)
  28. Menocal, Pedro, "WE'LL DO IT FOR YOU ANY TIME : RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS AND CONTRACTS IN THE UNITED STATES", St. Thomas Law. Review, 11, pp.317~ (1999)
  29. Moses, Margaret, "Party Agreements to Expand Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards", Journal of International Arbitration, 20(3) (2003)
  30. Nolan-Haley, Jacqueline M., "Alternative DISPUTE RESOLUTION, SECOND EDITION" (2001), WEST GROUP
  31. Oehmke, Thomas H., "Arbitration Award Vacatur & Confirmation at Common Law—A 21st Century Option", Am. Jur. Trials, 112, pp.365~ (2020)
  32. Reubena1, "Richard C PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND VACATUR AFTER HALL STREET", Penn St. L. Rev, 113, pp.1103~ (2009)
  33. Smit, Hans, "Contractual Modification of the Scope of Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards", AM. Review. International Arbitration, 8, pp.147~ (1997)
  34. "The California Rent-A-Judge Experiment: Constitutional and Policy Considerations of Pay-As-You-Go Courts", Harvard. Law. Review, 94, pp.1592~1594 (1981)
  35. Ware, Stephen J., "Punitive Damages in Arbitration, Contracting Out of Government's Role in Punishment and Federal Preemption of State Law", Fordham Law. Review, 63, pp.529~ (1994)

관련 논문AI추천

Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States김용길, 장병윤, David L. Welch한국중재학회 · 중재연구2017 · 제27권 제3호Korean case analysis of compelling arbitration in the United States김용길, 장병윤, David L. Welch한국중재학회 · 중재연구2018 · 제28권 제1호국내중재판정의 강제집행에서 법원의역할에 관한 한미간 비교 고찰- 한국의 중재법과 미국연방중재법을 중심으로 -하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2005 · 제15권 제3호당사자합의에 의한 중재판정의 사법심사 확대에 관한 연구 - 미국판례를 중심으로 -박원형한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2008 · 제21권 제3호뉴욕협약상 외국중재판정에 대한 미국법원의 해석박원형, 하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2006 · 제16권 제2호중재판정 승인의 개념, 효력 및 절차에 관한 연구이호원한국중재학회 · 중재연구2013 · 제23권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

Applicability of Mandatory Rules for Seafarer Protection손경한pp. 21-45"Belt and Road" and Arbitration Law Teaching and Education System Theory朱福勇pp. 47-66Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Incompatible with the Korean Procedural Framework임수현pp. 67-94'Artificial Intelligence' Acceptability in Online Dispute Resolution: A Comparison Study of Korean Age Groups정용균pp. 95-113A Review of Arbitrator Disclosure Obligations in Korea through the Oilhub Case김준기pp. 115-136
원문 보기