본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

중재기관평가모형을 통한 중국 지방중재위원회의 특성연구

A Study of Chinese Local Arbitration Committees Based on Arbitration Institution Evaluation Model

정용균|이승석
한국중재학회 (Korean Association Of Arbitration Studies(Kaas))|2010.08|중재연구 (JOURNAL OF ARBITRATION STUDIES)|제20권 제2호|pp. 199-226|DOI 10.16998/jas.2010.20.2.199

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

중국China지방중재위원회중재기관평가모형local arbitration committeesarbitration institution evaluation model
주제분류무역학

초록

This study investigates the characteristics of local arbitration committees in China based on arbitration institution evaluation model. Most of the literature on Chinese arbitration committees only focuses on CIETAC. However, the promulgation of 1994 Chinese arbitration act allows local arbitration committees to deal the arbitration cases related with foreign element. Before 1994, only CIETAC and CMAC handle the arbitration cases related with foreign element. For the evaluation of the local arbitration committees, this study establishes the arbitration institution evaluation model. This model has seven evaluation criteria: accessability, independence, neutrality, rapidity, economy, professionality, and extent of enforcement. Our findings are as follows. First, Chinese local arbitration committees have the strengths in the fields of accessability, economy and rapidity. However, they are deficient in the area of neutrality, professionality, and independence. Second, the spatial distribution of Chinese local arbitration committees is not equal in China. The number of local arbitration committees is big in the high growth region such as Shandong province. On the other hand, the number of local arbitration committees is small in the economically stagnant area. Third, the size and activity of local arbitration committees are various. Some of them are very active in dispute resolution through arbitration in China. For example, Beijing Arbitration Committee(BAC), Wuhan, Quangzou Arbitration Committee play the important role in dispute resolution through arbitration. However, the large part of local arbitration committees is financially weak and depend on the local government's financial support.

Abstract

This study investigates the characteristics of local arbitration committees in China based on arbitration institution evaluation model. Most of the literature on Chinese arbitration committees only focuses on CIETAC. However, the promulgation of 1994 Chinese arbitration act allows local arbitration committees to deal the arbitration cases related with foreign element. Before 1994, only CIETAC and CMAC handle the arbitration cases related with foreign element. For the evaluation of the local arbitration committees, this study establishes the arbitration institution evaluation model. This model has seven evaluation criteria: accessability, independence, neutrality, rapidity, economy, professionality, and extent of enforcement. Our findings are as follows. First, Chinese local arbitration committees have the strengths in the fields of accessability, economy and rapidity. However, they are deficient in the area of neutrality, professionality, and independence. Second, the spatial distribution of Chinese local arbitration committees is not equal in China. The number of local arbitration committees is big in the high growth region such as Shandong province. On the other hand, the number of local arbitration committees is small in the economically stagnant area. Third, the size and activity of local arbitration committees are various. Some of them are very active in dispute resolution through arbitration in China. For example, Beijing Arbitration Committee(BAC), Wuhan, Quangzou Arbitration Committee play the important role in dispute resolution through arbitration. However, the large part of local arbitration committees is financially weak and depend on the local government's financial support.

참고문헌 (35)

  1. 김경배, "중재인의 공정성과 독립성에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 18(1), pp.31~47 (2008), 한국중재학회
  2. 김석철, "칭따오 진출 한국기업을 위한 중재절차 통일화에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 15(2), pp.37~59 (2005), 한국중재학회
  3. 김선정, "중국에 있어서 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행 거절 사유인 공서와 법의 지배", 중재연구, 18(3), pp.23~50 (2008), 한국중재학회
  4. 리쩬화, "중국 상사중재제도의 발전과 특징", pp.36~43 (2010), 대한상사중재원
  5. 성백영, "중국인민공화국 중재법의 내용과 문제점 고찰: 섭외중재제도를 중심으로", 한중법학회 제18회 정례학술발표대회 (1998)
  6. 신군재, "중국 중재제도의 특성에 관한 사례 연구", 무역학회지, 29(4), pp.211~230 (2004), 한국무역학회
  7. 우광명, "중국국제경제무역중재위원회의 중재규칙에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 16(1), pp.121~151 (2006), 한국중재학회
  8. 윤진기, "2005년 CIETAC 중재규칙 개정과 중국 중재법상의 문제점 개선", 중재연구, 16(3), pp.91~125 (2006), 한국중재학회
  9. 윤충원, "중국의 중재법상 중재기관 약정과 관련한 중재합의 유효요건에 관한 사례연구", 무역학회지, 32(3), pp.65~92 (2007), 한국무역학회
  10. 이강빈, "상사중재에 있어서 당사자자치의 역할", 중재연구, 19(2), pp.3~26 (2009), 한국중재학회
  11. 이주원, "CIETAC 중재의 중재절차상 실무적 문제점에 관한 연구", 국제상학, 19(2), pp.185~204 (2004), 한국국제상학회
  12. 이창훈, "중국비지니스에서 꽌시의 역할과 시사점", 국제상학, 22(1), pp.235~255 (2007), 한국국제상학회
  13. 전대규, "중국민사소송법" (2008), 박영사
  14. 정용균, "중국에서의 상사중재판정 집행에 관한 동향과 제도개선 연구 : 외국투자자 관점을 중심으로", 중재연구, 20(1), pp.133~167 (2010), 한국중재학회
  15. 정용균, "중국지방중재위원회의 현황과 CIETAC과의 비교", 2010년 춘계중재학술발표대회 논문집, pp.68~87 (2010), 한국중재학회
  16. 장승화, "국제중재: 중재인의 시각. in: 제6기 중재CEO아카데미 자료-7" (2010), 대한상사중재원
  17. 차경자, "중국의 섭외 및 외국중재판정 강제집행제도 연구", 중재연구, 15(2), pp.263~292 (2005), 한국중재학회
  18. 홍성규, "중국의 상사분쟁해결시스템의 문제점과 대응방안에 관한 연구 - 섭외중재제도를 중심으로 -", 국제상학, 23(3), pp.131~153 (2008), 한국국제상학회
  19. Chen, Lumming, "Some Reflections on International Commercial Arbitration in China", Journal of International Arbitration, 13(2), pp.121~149 (1996)
  20. Clarke, Donald, "Power and Politics in the Chinese Court System: The Enforcement of Civil Judgement", Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 10, pp.1~92 (1996)
  21. Diamant, Neil, "Conflict and Conflict Resolution in China: Beyond Mediation-Centered Approaches", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(4), pp.523~546 (2000)
  22. Fei, Langfang, "Implementation of the New York Convention in China: A Case Study", Asian International Arbitration Journal, 4(2), pp.123~136 (2008)
  23. Hindess, Barry, "Philosophy and Methodology in the Social Sciences" (1977), The Harvester Press
  24. Johnson, Graeme, "Bridging the Gap Between Western and Chinese Arbitration Systems", Journal of International Arbitration, 24(6), pp.565~580 (2007)
  25. Oliver Williamson, "Markets and Hierarchies" (1975), Free Press
  26. Peerenboom, Randall, "Seek Truth from Facts: An Empirical Study of Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in the PRC", American Journal of Comparative Law, 49, pp.249~327 (2001)
  27. Popper, K. R., "Conjectures and Refutations" (1963), Routledge and Kegan Paul
  28. Read, Benjamin, "Mediating the Mediation Debate: Conflict Resolution and the Local State in China", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(5), pp.737~764 (2008)
  29. Reinstein, Ellen, "Finding a Happy Ending for Foreign Investors: The Enforcement of Arbitration Awards in the People's Republic of China", Indian International and Comparative Law Review, 16, pp.37~72 (2005)
  30. Tao, Jinzhou, "Articles 16 and 18 of the PRC Arbitration Law: The Great Wall for Foreign Arbitration Institutions", A rbitration International, 2, pp.309~326 (2007)
  31. Thorp, Peter, "The PRC Arbitration Law: Problems and Prospects for Amendment", Journal of International Arbitration, 24(6), pp.607~622 (2007)
  32. Wall, James, "Community Mediation in the People's Republic of China", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(1), pp.3~20 (1991)
  33. Wang, David, "Judical Reform in China: Improving Arbitration Award Enforcement by Establishing a Federal Court System", Santa Clara Law Review, 48, pp.649~679 (2008)
  34. Wang Wenying, "Distinct Features of Arbitration in China: A Historical Perspective", Journal of International Arbitration, 23(1), pp.49~80 (2006)
  35. Yuen Peter, "Arbitration Clauses in a Chinese Context", Journal of International Arbitration, 24(6), pp.581~596 (2007)

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

UNCITRAL의 최근 동향 : 1976년 UNCITRAL 중재규칙 개정안의 제3회독을 중심으로강병근pp. 3-26중재협정을 통한 상사분쟁의 해결촉진김상호pp. 27-48중재인 선정과 법원의 역할에 관한 연구김철호, 박원형pp. 49-66국제중재에서의 전자증거개시 -전자증거개시를 규율하는 규정의 제정을 중심으로-안정혜pp. 67-90중국상사중재의 사법감독 실태와 개선방안김태경, 오원석pp. 91-130
원문 보기