한․중․미 중재인의 선정 및 기피에 관한 비교연구
A Comparative Study on the Selection and Discharge of Arbitrator(s) among Korea, China and America
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
China and North America have been South Korea's biggest trading partner long time. As the volume of trade has been increasing, the disputes between Korean companies and Chinese Companies and between Korean companies and North American Companies have been increasing. If these disputes are settled by Arbitration, the parties appoint arbitrators who are empowered to proceed the arbitration procedure and have a power to render an arbitral award. Accordingly, it is very important for the parties to select who is an arbitrators in Arbitration. But if the parties doubt their arbitrator(s)'s fairness and independency, they can discharge them in accordance to law and arbitration institute's rules. In comparison with arbitrator system for way of selection and discharge among Korea, China and North America, some differences are found. First, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or the presiding arbitrator by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them or him in Korea and North America whereas the Chairman of CIETAC choose him in China. Second, the authority to decide whether arbitrator is discharged owing to his fairness and independency, depends on arbitration institute and court in Korea and North American whereas it depends on the Chairman of CIETAC only.
Abstract
China and North America have been South Korea's biggest trading partner long time. As the volume of trade has been increasing, the disputes between Korean companies and Chinese Companies and between Korean companies and North American Companies have been increasing. If these disputes are settled by Arbitration, the parties appoint arbitrators who are empowered to proceed the arbitration procedure and have a power to render an arbitral award. Accordingly, it is very important for the parties to select who is an arbitrators in Arbitration. But if the parties doubt their arbitrator(s)'s fairness and independency, they can discharge them in accordance to law and arbitration institute's rules. In comparison with arbitrator system for way of selection and discharge among Korea, China and North America, some differences are found. First, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or the presiding arbitrator by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them or him in Korea and North America whereas the Chairman of CIETAC choose him in China. Second, the authority to decide whether arbitrator is discharged owing to his fairness and independency, depends on arbitration institute and court in Korea and North American whereas it depends on the Chairman of CIETAC only.
참고문헌 (37)
- 고재경, "상사중재론" (1990), 동성사
- 곽영실, "국제상사중재론" (2003), 도서출판 두남
- 김경배, "국제무역분쟁과 ADR" (2005), 무역경영사
- 김덕수, "중국 CIETAC의 중재제도와 한중양국의 주요중재문제", 중재학회지, 8(3) (1998), 한국중재학회
- 김용일, "국제상사중재에서 중재인 선정에 관한 비교연구", 통상정보연구, 8(3), pp.215~235 (2006), 한국통상정보학회
- 목영준, "상사중재론" (2000), 박영사
- 목영준, "중재인의 권한,책임 및 면책", 중재논총 (2002), 대한상사중재원
- 박철규, "Authorities and Duties of Arbitrators Under the Korean Arbitration Act and the American Arbitration Acts", 중재연구, 16(1), pp.315~341 (2006), 한국중재학회
- 성백영, "중화인민공화국중재법의 내용과 문제점 고찰-섭외중재제도를 중심으로", 한중법학회 제18회 정례학술발표회 발표 논문 (1998)
- 신군재, "한국과 중국의 중재인제도 비교분석", 국제상학, 24(4), pp.207~225 (2009), 한국국제상학회
- 신군재, "국제상사중재에서 중재인선정 방식에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 20(1), pp.21~39 (2010), 한국중재학회
- 신군재, "남북한 및 중국 중재제도의 비교연구", 중재연구, 17(2), pp.101~124 (2007), 한국중재학회
- 안병회, "중재인의 권한확정권한(Kompetenz-Kompetenz)에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 11 (2001), 한국중재학회
- 오원석, "ICC仲裁에서 仲裁人 選定과 確認에관한 硏究", 중재연구, 17(2), pp.23~41 (2007), 한국중재학회
- 오원석, "ICC 중재에서 중재법원의 제3중재인 선정에 관한 연구", 무역학회지, 33(1), pp.1~24 (2008), 한국무역학회
- 오창석, "상사중재에 있어서의 중재인에 대한 시피사유와 중재인의 고지의무", 상사판례연구, 19(1), pp.353~388 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
- 이강빈, "국제상사중재에서 중재판정부의 권한과 임시적 처분에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 18(2), pp.103~127 (2008), 한국중재학회
- 이명우, "중재인의 기피에 관한 고찰", 중재연구, 13(2), pp.403~424 (2004), 한국중재학회
- 윤진기, "중국 중재법상의 문제점과 한국 기업의 대응방안", 중재, (291) (1999), 대한상사중재원
- 장복희, "중재판정부의 구성과 중재인 선정", 중재논총(1999-2000) (2002), 대한상사중재원
- 정선주, "중재인에 대한 기피", 중재연구, 17(1) (2007), 한국중재학회
- 주기종, "중재인의 독립성․공정성과 당사자의 기피", 법학논집, 15 (1999), 청주대학교 법학연구소
- 최혁준, "중재판정부 구성에 관한 비교연구-외국중재규칙을 중심으로 -", 중재연구, 16(1), pp.187~217 (2006), 한국중재학회
- 황병일, "중재와 소송의 실무절차 비교", 중재논총(1991~1998) (2002), 대한상사중재원
- 홍성규, "국제상사중재" (2002), 도서출판 두남
- Veach T., "Meeting the Communicative Needs of International Arbitration in a Global Economy: from International Arbitrator to Global Arbitrator", 2007년 추계학술대회 발표집 (2007), 한국관세학회
- Akseli O, "Appointment of Arbitrators as Specified in the Agreement to Arbitrate", Journal of International Arbitration, 20(3) (2003)
- Ambrose C, "London Maritime Arbitration" (2002), Lloyd's Shipping Library
- Garcia-Bolivar O. E, "Comparing Arbitrator Standards of Conduct in International Commercial Trade Investment Disputes", Dispute Resolution Journal (2005)
- Miles W., "Practical Issues for Appointment of Arbitrators-Lawyer vs Non-Lawyer and Sole Arbitrators vs Panel of Three(or More)", Journal of International Arbitration, 20(3), pp.219~232 (2003)
- Redfern A., "Having Confidence in International Arbitration", Dispute Resolution Journal, pp.81~ (2002)
- Rubino-SamartanoM., "International Arbitration Law" (1990), Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation ‘Publishers
- Shampnoi E., "The Arbitrator Selection Process and New Ethic Standards", The CPA Journal (2005)
- The American Arbitration Association, "Review of Court Decision", The Arbitration Journal, 35(4) (1980)
- Thomson C. R, "Managing An International Arbitration", Dispute Resolution Journal (2005)
- Walton A., "Russel on the Law of Arbitration" (1979), Stevens & Sons Ltd
- Wilner G.M, "Domke on Commercial Arbitration" (1984), llaghan and Company