독점규제법 관련분쟁의 중재의 대상적격 = he Arbitrability of the Subject-matter of a Dispute on the Antitrust Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy.
In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings.
For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws.
It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 목영준, "상사중재법론" 박영사 2001

2 장승화, "독점금지법상 금지청구와 손해배상청구" 대한변호사협회 (299) : 2001

3 김차동, "공정거래법의 사적집행제도의 변경 및 그 보완방안" 한국경쟁법학회 11 : 2005

4 高田 薰, "行政事件の仲裁適格性(2)" 日本商事仲裁協會 46 (46): 1999

5 高田 薰, "行政事件の仲裁適格性(1)" 日本商事仲裁協會 46 (46): 1999

6 田邊 誠, "民事紛爭の仲裁適格について-ドイツにおける議論を參考にして-" 法律文化史 (42) : 1996

7 猪股孝史, "仲裁合意の本旨そして仲裁可能性" 日本商事仲裁協會 53 (53): 2006

8 上野泰男, "仲裁可能性. in: 現代仲裁法の論点" 有斐閣 1998

9 Schwab, Karl Heinz, "Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" C. H. Beck 2005

10 Beckstiegel, Karl Heinz, "Public Policy and Arbitrability. in: in ICCA Congress Series 3, Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration" Kulwer Law and Taxation 1986

11 Barber, Horst, "Objektive Schiedsfähikeit und ordre public in der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" PETER LANG 1994

12 McGrath, Paul, "Mitsubishi-Arbitration of Domestic Antitrust Disputes" 12 : 693-, 1986

13 Redfern, Alan, "Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration" Sweet ＆ Maxwell 2004

14 David, René, "Arbitration in International Trade" Kulwer Law and Taxation 1985

15 Healy, Nicholas J., "An Introduction to Federal Arbitration Act" 13 : 223-, 1982