미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위

@article{ART001054693},
author={ 하충룡 and 박원형 },
title={미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위},
journal={중재연구},
issn={1226-3699},
year={2007},
volume={17},
number={1},
pages={77-95},
doi={10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77},
url={http://dx.doi.org/10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77}

TY - JOUR
AU - 하충룡
AU - 박원형
TI - 미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위
T2 - 중재연구
PY - 2007
VL - 17
IS - 1
PB - 한국중재학회
SP - 77-95
SN - 1226-3699
AB - This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.
KW - 상사중재, 중재가능성, 선택적 중재합의, 중재합의의 부당성, 미국 연방중재법
DO - 10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77
ER -

하충룡 and 박원형 (2007). 미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위. 중재연구, 17( 1), 77- 95.

하충룡 and 박원형 . 2007, “미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위”, 중재연구, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 77-95. Available from: doi:10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77

하충룡 박원형 et al. “미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위” 중재연구 17.1 pp. 77-95 (2007): 77.

하충룡 , 박원형 . 미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위 중재연구 [Internet]. 2007; 17( 1), : 77-95. Available from: doi:10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77

하충룡 and 박원형 . “미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위” 중재연구 17, no.1 (2007): 77-95. doi: 10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77

홈 권호 목록 논문 목록 논문 상세

미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위

중재연구

약어 : -

2007, vol.17, no.1, pp.77 - 95

DOI : 10.16998/jas.2007.17.1.77

발행기관 : 한국중재학회

연구분야 : 무역학

하충룡¹ , 박원형²

¹부산대학교

²목원대학교

인용한 논문 수 : 8 서지 간략 보기

초록

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

키워드

상사중재, 중재가능성, 선택적 중재합의, 중재합의의 부당성, 미국 연방중재법

참고문헌(26)

[학술지] 김경배 / 2005 / 선택적 중재합의의 유효성에 관한 연구 15 (1)
[학술지] 김교창 / 2003.03 / 선택적 중재합의의 효력 319
[학술지] 김대현 / 2005 / 선택적 중재조항 관련 대법원 판례의 해석과 의미 (312)
[학술지] 김명기 / 2003 / 선택적 중재합의에 관한 판례의 연구 (309)
[학술지] 김연호 / 2004 / 건설중재시 선택적 중재합의의 재해석 (314)
[학술지] 서정일 / 2005 / 건설중재에 있어서 선택적중재합의의 유효성에 관한 연구 / 무역상무연구 25 : 165 ~ 188
[학술지] 장문철 / 2003 / 선택적 중재합의와 단계적 분쟁해결조항 12 (2)
[학술지] / 2003 / 단계적, 선택적 분쟁해결조항의 연구 (308)
[학술지] / 2004 / 선택적 중재합의조항의 유효성과 문제점 13 (2)
[학술지] / 2002.08.28 / 선택적 중재합의론 소고 (3102)
[학술지] / 2002.08.22 / 공사계약일반조건상의 중재조항 유효성 여부 (3100) : 15
[학술지] / 2002 / 중재법(법률 제6626호, 2002년 1월 26일 개정)
[학술지] / 2003 / 대법원 2003.08.22. 선고 2003다318판결
[학술지] / 1999 / Law and Practice of International Arbitration 3rd
[학술지] / 1998 / Commercial Arbitration as the Most Effective Dispute Resolution Method--Still a Fact or Now a Myth? 15
[학술지] / 2003 / The Use of Multi-tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses in Latin America：Qeustions of Enforceablity 14
[학술지] / 2006 / The Status and Operation of Unilateral or Optional Arbitration Clauses 22 (1)
[학술지] / 2003 / Arbitration Law
[학술지] / 1990 / Domke on Commercial Arbitration
[학술지] / 2006 / Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts
[학술지] / 1996 / Arbitration and Unconscionability after Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto
[학술지] / 1994 / Alternative Dispute Resolution of Employment Discrimination Claims 54
[학술지] / 2005 / Oehmke Commercial Arbitration 3rd
[학술지] / 1996 / Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 116 S. Ct. 1652
[학술지] / 1999 / Satcom International Group PLC v. Orbcomm International Partners, L.P., 49 F.Supp.2d 331
[학술지] / 1999 / Iwen v. U.S. West Direct, a Div. of U.S. West Marketing Resources Group, Inc., 1999 MT 63, 293 Mont. 512, 977 P.2d 989, 996