Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts‐‐‐due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes‐‐‐in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. “domestic” disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of “international” arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non‐domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.
Abstract
Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts‐‐‐due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes‐‐‐in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. “domestic” disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of “international” arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non‐domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.
참고문헌 (22)
- "Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 414, 66 L.Ed.2d 308", ~ (1980)
- "CBF Industria de Gusa S", A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., 850 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. March 2, 2017), 2017
- "E. Land Retail Ltd. v Sky Mart Global LLC, 2014 WL 6635018 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2014)", ~ (2014)
- "Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, ― S.Ct. ―, 2017 WL 2039160 (May 15, 2017)", ~ (2017)
- "McDonald v. City of West Branch, Mich., 466 U.S. 284, 104 S.Ct. 1799, 80 L.Ed.2d 302", ~
- "115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3646, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34, 290", ~ (1984)
- "National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., ― F.3d ―, 2017 WL 2297620 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017)", ~ (2017)
- "Robinson v. PNC Bank and Linden Volkswagen, 2017 WL 2399082 (D.N.J. June 2, 2017)", ~ (2017)
- "Scherk v. Alberto‐Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)", ~ (1974)
- "Seng Woo Lee v. Imaging3, Inc., 283 Fed. Appx. 490, 2008 WL 2485406 (9th Cir. 2008)", ~ (2008)
- "UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (with new article 1, paragraph 4, as adopted in 2013)", United Nations, ~ (2014)
- UNCITRAL Secretariat, "Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), (2016 ed. 2016)", ~
- "The Arbitration Act of Korea", ~ (2016)
- "The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, United Nations", ~ (1958)
- "The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, §§ 201-208, §§ 301-307)", ~ (1990)
- "The Inter‐American Convention on international commercial arbitration. Concluded at Panama City on 30 January 1975 (United Nations ‐ Treaty Series, Vol. 1438,1‐24384, 1986)", ~ (1986)
- "The U.S. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 98, § 117", ~ (1971)
- "9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16; 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208; 9 U.S.C §§ 301-307", ~ (1990)
- 장병윤, "Research Cases of the United States Concerning Arbitration of Intellectual Property Disputes", 중재연구, 22(3), pp.93~118 (2012), 한국중재학회
- 김용길, "知識財産權紛爭의 裁判外 解決制度에 관한 硏究 - 調停과 仲裁를 中心으로 -", 중재연구, 19(1), pp.67~98 (2009), 한국중재학회
- 김용길, "우리나라에서 외국중재판정의 승인과 집행에 관한 고찰", 중재연구, 20(3), pp.3~24 (2010), 한국중재학회
- 김용길, "중재합의의 효력범위에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2011.12.22. 선고 2010다76573 판결을 중심으로 -", 중재연구, 23(2), pp.1~35 (2013), 한국중재학회