미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위
The Status of Unilateral Arbitration Agreements the U.S. Case Laws
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.
Abstract
This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.
참고문헌 (26)
- 김경배, "선택적 중재합의의 유효성에 관한 연구", 15(1) (2005), 한국중재학회
- 김교창, "선택적 중재합의의 효력", 319 (2003)
- 김대현, "선택적 중재조항 관련 대법원 판례의 해석과 의미", (312) (2005)
- 김명기, "선택적 중재합의에 관한 판례의 연구", (309) (2003)
- 김연호, "건설중재시 선택적 중재합의의 재해석", (314) (2004)
- 서정일, "건설중재에 있어서 선택적중재합의의 유효성에 관한 연구", 무역상무연구, 25, pp.165~188 (2005), 한국무역상무학회
- 장문철, "선택적 중재합의와 단계적 분쟁해결조항", 12(2) (2003), 한국중재학회
- "단계적, 선택적 분쟁해결조항의 연구", (308) (2003)
- "선택적 중재합의조항의 유효성과 문제점", 13(2) (2004), 한국중재학회
- "선택적 중재합의론 소고", (3102) (2002), 법률신문
- "공사계약일반조건상의 중재조항 유효성 여부", (3100), pp.15~ (2002), 법률신문
- "중재법(법률 제6626호, 2002년 1월 26일 개정)" (2002)
- "대법원 2003.08.22. 선고 2003다318판결" (2003)
- "Law and Practice of International Arbitration 3rd" (1999), Sweet & Maxwell
- "Commercial Arbitration as the Most Effective Dispute Resolution Method--Still a Fact or Now a Myth?", 15 (1998)
- "The Use of Multi-tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses in Latin America：Qeustions of Enforceablity", 14 (2003)
- "The Status and Operation of Unilateral or Optional Arbitration Clauses", 22(1) (2006)
- "Arbitration Law" (2003), Thomson[DOI]
- "Domke on Commercial Arbitration" (1990)
- "Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts" (2006), Juris Publishing, Inc.
- "Arbitration and Unconscionability after Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto" (1996)
- "Alternative Dispute Resolution of Employment Discrimination Claims", 54 (1994)
- "Oehmke Commercial Arbitration 3rd" (2005), Thomson[DOI]
- "Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 116 S. Ct. 1652" (1996)
- "Satcom International Group PLC v. Orbcomm International Partners, L.P., 49 F.Supp.2d 331" (1999)
- "Iwen v. U.S. West Direct, a Div. of U.S. West Marketing Resources Group, Inc., 1999 MT 63, 293 Mont. 512, 977 P.2d 989, 996" (1999)