Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

취소된 외국중재판정의 집행가능성에 관한 연구

Full metadata record
DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author신창섭-
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-07T01:40:33Z-
dc.date.available2022-01-07T01:40:33Z-
dc.date.created2021-08-31-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.issn1598-1584-
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/134669-
dc.description.abstractThe 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.-
dc.languageKorean-
dc.language.isoko-
dc.publisher고려대학교 법학연구원-
dc.title취소된 외국중재판정의 집행가능성에 관한 연구-
dc.title.alternativeA Study on the Enforceability of An Annulled Foreign Arbitral Award-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor신창섭-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation고려법학, no.59, pp.49 - 83-
dc.relation.isPartOf고려법학-
dc.citation.title고려법학-
dc.citation.number59-
dc.citation.startPage49-
dc.citation.endPage83-
dc.type.rimsART-
dc.identifier.kciidART001515033-
dc.description.journalClass2-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClasskci-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorUN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorNew York Convention-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorForeign Arbitral Award-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorEnforcement of Arbitral Award-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorAnnulment of Arbitral Award-
dc.subject.keywordAuthor외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 UN협약-
dc.subject.keywordAuthor뉴욕협약-
dc.subject.keywordAuthor외국중재판정-
dc.subject.keywordAuthor중재판정의 집행-
dc.subject.keywordAuthor중재판정의 취소-
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
ETC > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Shin, Chang Sop photo

Shin, Chang Sop
법학전문대학원
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE