KCAB 국제중재규칙과 CIETAC 중재규칙의 비교연구
A Comparative Study on the International Arbitration Rules of KCAB and Arbitration Rules of CIETAC
0
조회
0
다운로드
13
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The KCAB enacted their new international arbitration rules(the KCAB rules) in 2007 wheres The CIETAC revised their arbitration rules(the CIETAC new rules) in 2005. This article investigates some practical problems on both rules respectively and helps trading companies to proceed arbitration by these rules. This study finds some problems as follows. There are the following problems in KCAB rules. First, application fee is too expensive fee. So KCAB should cut down their application fee. Second, if there is no agreement on number of arbitrators, the arbitration is processed by sole arbitrator. But it is very difficult for sole arbitrator to process international arbitration due to characteristics of international arbitration such as complexity of case and a large sum of claim. Third, a period of selection of arbitrator is long. In view of developing of communication means, this period is needed more short. In the meantimes, there are the following problems in CIETAC rules. First, though the CIETAC new rules enlarges the right of parties autonomy such as selection of arbitration rules or revise of it, China arbitration Act stipulates a institute arbitration which restrict partie's autonomy. Second, if there is no agreement on arbitrators, the CIETAC appoints chair of tribural in three arbitrators ion or sole arbitrators. is processed by sole arbitrator. Third, a draft of arbitral award is checked by the CIETAC in advance. Especially, the two latter problems is possible for foreigners to have doubts of fairness of CIETAC arbitration. Becuase the CIETAC is not a complete independent private institution. Consequently, I suggest that Korean trading companies should examine problems of these two arbitration rules carefully, and select a most appropriate rules for settlement of their disputes with Chines companies.
Abstract
The KCAB enacted their new international arbitration rules(the KCAB rules) in 2007 wheres The CIETAC revised their arbitration rules(the CIETAC new rules) in 2005. This article investigates some practical problems on both rules respectively and helps trading companies to proceed arbitration by these rules. This study finds some problems as follows. There are the following problems in KCAB rules. First, application fee is too expensive fee. So KCAB should cut down their application fee. Second, if there is no agreement on number of arbitrators, the arbitration is processed by sole arbitrator. But it is very difficult for sole arbitrator to process international arbitration due to characteristics of international arbitration such as complexity of case and a large sum of claim. Third, a period of selection of arbitrator is long. In view of developing of communication means, this period is needed more short. In the meantimes, there are the following problems in CIETAC rules. First, though the CIETAC new rules enlarges the right of parties autonomy such as selection of arbitration rules or revise of it, China arbitration Act stipulates a institute arbitration which restrict partie's autonomy. Second, if there is no agreement on arbitrators, the CIETAC appoints chair of tribural in three arbitrators ion or sole arbitrators. is processed by sole arbitrator. Third, a draft of arbitral award is checked by the CIETAC in advance. Especially, the two latter problems is possible for foreigners to have doubts of fairness of CIETAC arbitration. Becuase the CIETAC is not a complete independent private institution. Consequently, I suggest that Korean trading companies should examine problems of these two arbitration rules carefully, and select a most appropriate rules for settlement of their disputes with Chines companies.
참고문헌 (27)
- 김대현, "우리나라 중재법,UNCITRAL 표준중재법 및 주요 선진국 중재법의 비교", 무역상무연구, 7(2) (1994), 한국무역상무학회
- 김석철, "칭따오 진출 한국기업을 위한 중재절차 통일화에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 15(2) (2005), 한국중재학회
- 김석철, "동북아 주요국의 중재법제 비교연구", 중재연구, 17(3) (2007), 한국중재학회
- 김연호, "중국 대외경제무역중재위원회에서의 중재절차개설", 중재 (1997), 대한상사중재원
- 김태훈, "중국 섭외중재제도 현지조사-중국국제경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)를 중심으로", 중재 (2002), 대한상사중재원
- 대한상사중재원, "주해 중재법" (2005), 한국중재학회
- 문준조, "중국의 섭외경제분쟁해결제도와 사례", 법제연구 (1995), 법제연구소
- 석광현, "대한상사중재원의 2007년 국제중재규칙의 주요내용과 그에 대한 평가", 서울대학교 법학, 49(1) (2008)
- 성백영, "중화인민공화국중재법의 내용과 문제점 고찰-섭외중재제도를 중심으로-", 한중법학회 제18회 정례학술발표회 발표 논문 (1998)
- 신군재, "중국의 ADR제도와 국제중재판전의 강제집행절차에 관한 연구", 국제상학, 19(1) (2004), 한국국제상학회
- 윤진기, "2005년 CIETAC 중재규칙 개정과 중국 중재법상의 문제점 개선", 중재연구, 16(3) (2006), 한국중재학회
- 이시환, "중국에서의 국제상사중재판정의 승인 및 집행", 국제상학, 14(3) (2005), 한국국제상학회
- 이주원, "CIETAC 중재의 중재절차상 실무적 문제점에 관한 연구", 국제상학, 14(3) (2004), 한국국제상학회
- "이해완, “중국의 사법제도” in http:", ~j9917186, pp.date-13.html
- 차경자, "중국의 섭외 및 외국중재판정 강제집행제도 연구", 중재연구, 15(2) (2005), 한국중재학회
- 최석범, "한·일 중재법상 중재판정의 비교법적 고찰", 중재연구, 16(1) (2006), 한국중재학회
- 최장호, "한국과 대만의 중재법 개정에 관한 연구", 국제상학, 14(3) (1999), 한국국제상학회
- 한국중재학회, "中·韓·日 國際仲裁學術大會 발표자료집" (2003)
- 담병주편, "중국중재제도연구" (1995), 법률출판사
- 章武生, "司法現代化與民事訴訟制度的建構" (2000), 法律出版社
- 蔣新苗, "仲裁法 實例說" (2003), 湖南人民出版社
- Clare Ambrose, "London Maritime Arbitration" (2002), Lloyd's Shipping Library
- Diamant N.J., "Conflict and Conflict Resolution in China", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(4) (2000)
- Michael J. Moser, "The new CIETAC Arbitration Rules", Arbitration International, 21(3) (2005), LCIA
- Randall Peerenboom, "Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in China", The China Business Review, 28(1) (2001)
- [URL]
- [URL]
