RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    취소된 외국중재판정의 집행가능성에 관한 연구 = A Study on the Enforceability of An Annulled Foreign Arbitral Award

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A86946563

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The purpose of the New York Convention is to promote arbitration and to facilitate the enforcement of arbitration awards. Although the objectives of the Convention are clear, some of its language is ambiguous. One ambiguity in particular has provoked intense debate. Article V of the Convention prescribes the grounds for denial of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Subsection (1)(e) of Article V states that a country may refuse to recognize and enforce an award only on specified grounds. One such ground is annulment of the award by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made. Tension exists between Article V(1)(e) and Article VII, which provides that a foreign arbitral award is enforceable to the full extent of the law of the country in which enforcement is sought. The issue is how to reconcile these two provisions. In part II, this paper discusses the effects of the annulment of arbitral awards. Here it will explore the merits and demerits of the territorial and the delocalized approaches, with the conclusion that the delocalized approach should be adopted. In agreement with the delocalized approach, it argues that the country of origin should be divested of its power to annul an award while allowing the country whose law governed the arbitration to retain annulment power. If the parties chose no national law to govern their dispute, no country would have the authority to set aside the award. In part III, it examines the Convention, analyzing its text and legislative history. concluding that the Article VII, being a mandatory provision, should be given priority over the Article V which is a discretionary provision. In part IV, it analyzes the three U.S. decisions that have interpreted Article V(1)(e) and VII of the New York Convention, criticizing their holdings based on the above discussions. In conclusion, this paper proposes that the court of the country in which enforcement is sought be given wider discretion in determining whether a foreign arbitral award which was annulled by another country should be enforced.
    번역하기

    The purpose of the New York Convention is to promote arbitration and to facilitate the enforcement of arbitration awards. Although the objectives of the Convention are clear, some of its language is ambiguous. One ambiguity in particular has provoked ...

    The purpose of the New York Convention is to promote arbitration and to facilitate the enforcement of arbitration awards. Although the objectives of the Convention are clear, some of its language is ambiguous. One ambiguity in particular has provoked intense debate. Article V of the Convention prescribes the grounds for denial of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Subsection (1)(e) of Article V states that a country may refuse to recognize and enforce an award only on specified grounds. One such ground is annulment of the award by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made. Tension exists between Article V(1)(e) and Article VII, which provides that a foreign arbitral award is enforceable to the full extent of the law of the country in which enforcement is sought. The issue is how to reconcile these two provisions. In part II, this paper discusses the effects of the annulment of arbitral awards. Here it will explore the merits and demerits of the territorial and the delocalized approaches, with the conclusion that the delocalized approach should be adopted. In agreement with the delocalized approach, it argues that the country of origin should be divested of its power to annul an award while allowing the country whose law governed the arbitration to retain annulment power. If the parties chose no national law to govern their dispute, no country would have the authority to set aside the award. In part III, it examines the Convention, analyzing its text and legislative history. concluding that the Article VII, being a mandatory provision, should be given priority over the Article V which is a discretionary provision. In part IV, it analyzes the three U.S. decisions that have interpreted Article V(1)(e) and VII of the New York Convention, criticizing their holdings based on the above discussions. In conclusion, this paper proposes that the court of the country in which enforcement is sought be given wider discretion in determining whether a foreign arbitral award which was annulled by another country should be enforced.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 목영준, "상사중재법론" 박영사 2000

    2 석광현, "국제상사중재법연구, 제1권" 박영사 2007

    3 박상조, "국제상사중재법론" 한올출판사 1997

    4 신창섭, "국제사법" 세창출판사 2007

    5 이기수, "국제거래법, 제4판" 세창출판사 2010

    6 Albert Jan van den Berg, "“The Application of the New York Convention by the Courts,” in Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention"

    7 Emmanuel Gaillard, "“Enforcement of Awards Set Aside in the Country of Origin: The French Experience,” in Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention"

    8 Albert Jan van den Berg, "When Is Arbitral Award Nondomestic Under the New York Convention of 1958?" 6 : 25-, 1985

    9 Kenneth R. Davis, "Unconventional Wisdom: A New Look At Articles V and VII of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards" 37 : 43-, 2002

    10 Ray Y. Chan, "The Enforceability of Annulled Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States: a Critique of Chromalloy" 17 : 141-, 1999

    1 목영준, "상사중재법론" 박영사 2000

    2 석광현, "국제상사중재법연구, 제1권" 박영사 2007

    3 박상조, "국제상사중재법론" 한올출판사 1997

    4 신창섭, "국제사법" 세창출판사 2007

    5 이기수, "국제거래법, 제4판" 세창출판사 2010

    6 Albert Jan van den Berg, "“The Application of the New York Convention by the Courts,” in Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention"

    7 Emmanuel Gaillard, "“Enforcement of Awards Set Aside in the Country of Origin: The French Experience,” in Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention"

    8 Albert Jan van den Berg, "When Is Arbitral Award Nondomestic Under the New York Convention of 1958?" 6 : 25-, 1985

    9 Kenneth R. Davis, "Unconventional Wisdom: A New Look At Articles V and VII of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards" 37 : 43-, 2002

    10 Ray Y. Chan, "The Enforceability of Annulled Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States: a Critique of Chromalloy" 17 : 141-, 1999

    11 Kenneth Davis, "The Arbitration Clause: Unconscionability in the Securities Industry" 78 : 255-, 1998

    12 Stephen T. Ostrowski, "Note, Chromalloy: United States law and International Arbitration at the Crossroads" 73 : 1650-, 1998

    13 Giorgion Gaja, "Introduction to International Commercial Arbitration: New York Convention II"

    14 Jan Paulsson, "Enforcing Arbitral Awards Notwithstanding A Local Standard Annulment (LSA)" 9 (9): 1998

    15 Albert Jan van den Berg, "Enforcement of Annulled Awards,” (1998) 9 ICC Ct Bull (No 2, November)"

    16 William W. Park, "Duty and Discretion in International Arbitration" 93 : 805-, 1999

    17 Jan Paulsson, "Delocalisation of International Commercial Arbitration: When and Why It Matters" 32 : 53-, 1983

    18 Andrew Tweeddale, "Arbitration of Commercial Disputes-International and English Law and Practice" Oxford Univ. Press 2005

    19 Jan Paulsson, "Arbitration Unbound: Award Detached from the Law of Its Country of Origin" 30 : 358-, 1981

    20 Albert Jan van den Berg, "Annulment of Awards” in International Arbitration in International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards Judicialization and Uniformity?"

    21 Eric A. Schwartz, "A Comment on Chromalloy: Hilmarton, a l'americaine" 14 : 125-, 1997

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-06-25 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> Korea Law Review KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2008-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2006-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.42 1.42 1.11
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    1.14 1.05 1.166 0.89
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼