지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
When Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997, China declared to the whole world that Hong Kong is a part of China, but will keep the same society-economy law systems as before retrocession. Accordingly, two territories are keeping the different legal system. Of course, there is no exception in the law of arbitration. However, there have been several important problems which caused on account of ambiguity of legal application and governing law.
Concerning the arbitral awards, ambiguity is that arbitral awards adjudicated in two territories can not be accepted as domestic award, and also it can not be accepted as international award. Therefore, this ambiguity has caused the legal problem that arbitral awards adjudicated in two territories can neither be applicated to their domestic arbitral awards nor to New York Convention, in the process of mutual execution. In order to settle this problem, China and Hong Kong governments has established their own 「arrangement」 through negotiation in 2000, and started to apply it to arbitral awards adjudicated in the partner's territory, in the course of compulsory execution. Namely, the arrangement was established to give an legal authority of application in case of compulsory execution for the arbitral awards adjudicated in two territories.
By the way, there are several features and problems in the articles of arrangement.
First, arbitral awards adjudicated in China and Hong Kong are reviewed by the partner's court only for the procedural matters as the case of foreign arbitral awards.
Second, documentation for applying execution of arbitral awards has been simplified, and it is possible to apply compulsory execution more quickly and conveniently.
Third, foreign firms which hesitates to use Chinese arbitration service can settle commercial disputes with Chinese firms through Hong Kong arbitration service as an alternative.
Fourth, the coverage of compulsory execution of arbitral awards in the arrangement is not prescribed. Moreover, the coverage of possible arbitration is different each other. Accordingly, there is the possibility that execution of arbitral award can be rejected by the partner on account of secession of arbitral coverage.
Fifth, the arrangement contains most of the articles of New York Convention, but it shows a distinct difference in the subject that two regulations are applicated because the arrangement was established to apply to the arbitral awards between two territories in one country.
Considering the above-mentioned points, it is suggestive, Korean firms which do business with Chinese partners had better contract to apply the arbitral rules and procedure of Hong Kong. And then the arbitral award adjudicated in Hong Kong can be enforced on the basis of the arrangement. In addition, it is advisable that Korean firms should not wait for Chinese partner's voluntary fulfillment of his obligation for a long time, because the statute of limitation of Chinese arbitral awards is very short.
Concerning the arbitral awards, ambiguity is that arbitral awards adjudicated in two territories can not be accepted as domestic award, and also it can not be accepted as international award. Therefore, this ambiguity has caused the legal problem that arbitral awards adjudicated in two territories can neither be applicated to their domestic arbitral awards nor to New York Convention, in the process of mutual execution. In order to settle this problem, China and Hong Kong governments has established their own 「arrangement」 through negotiation in 2000, and started to apply it to arbitral awards adjudicated in the partner's territory, in the course of compulsory execution. Namely, the arrangement was established to give an legal authority of application in case of compulsory execution for the arbitral awards adjudicated in two territories.
By the way, there are several features and problems in the articles of arrangement.
First, arbitral awards adjudicated in China and Hong Kong are reviewed by the partner's court only for the procedural matters as the case of foreign arbitral awards.
Second, documentation for applying execution of arbitral awards has been simplified, and it is possible to apply compulsory execution more quickly and conveniently.
Third, foreign firms which hesitates to use Chinese arbitration service can settle commercial disputes with Chinese firms through Hong Kong arbitration service as an alternative.
Fourth, the coverage of compulsory execution of arbitral awards in the arrangement is not prescribed. Moreover, the coverage of possible arbitration is different each other. Accordingly, there is the possibility that execution of arbitral award can be rejected by the partner on account of secession of arbitral coverage.
Fifth, the arrangement contains most of the articles of New York Convention, but it shows a distinct difference in the subject that two regulations are applicated because the arrangement was established to apply to the arbitral awards between two territories in one country.
Considering the above-mentioned points, it is suggestive, Korean firms which do business with Chinese partners had better contract to apply the arbitral rules and procedure of Hong Kong. And then the arbitral award adjudicated in Hong Kong can be enforced on the basis of the arrangement. In addition, it is advisable that Korean firms should not wait for Chinese partner's voluntary fulfillment of his obligation for a long time, because the statute of limitation of Chinese arbitral awards is very short.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 협약체결 이전 중국 내륙과 홍콩의 중재판정 상호집행
Ⅲ. 협약체결 이후 중국 내륙과 홍콩의 중재판정 상호집행
Ⅳ. 중국 내륙과 홍콩 간의 중재판정 상호집행에 따른 문제점
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (37)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - 구본민 / 2004 / 중국진출-이것만은 알고 하자 / 삼성경제연구소
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김여선 / 2006 / 중국 CEPA의 법적 고찰 / 국제거래법연구 15 (2) : 111 ~ 128
3. [단행본] - 목영준 / 2000 / 상사중재법론 / 박영사
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박종근 / 2004 / 중국대륙과 대만상사중재의 현황과 전망 / 성균관법학 16 (3) : 85 ~ 104
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 신군재 / 2004 / 중국 중재제도의 특성에 관한 사례 연구 / 무역학회지 29 (4) : 211 ~ 230
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김여선 / 2006 / 중국 CEPA의 법적 고찰 / 국제거래법연구 15 (2) : 111 ~ 128
3. [단행본] - 목영준 / 2000 / 상사중재법론 / 박영사
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박종근 / 2004 / 중국대륙과 대만상사중재의 현황과 전망 / 성균관법학 16 (3) : 85 ~ 104
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 신군재 / 2004 / 중국 중재제도의 특성에 관한 사례 연구 / 무역학회지 29 (4) : 211 ~ 230
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중재지인 외국에서 취소된 중재판정의 효력에 관한 고찰
중재연구
2004 .01
-
중재판정 취소에 관한 우리나라 판례의 태도
동아법학
2009 .11
-
The Challenge of Arbitral Awards in Pakistan
중재연구
2017 .01
-
국내중재판정의 강제집행에서 법원의역할에 관한 한미간 비교 고찰- 한국의 중재법과 미국연방중재법을 중심으로 -
중재연구
2005 .01
-
중국에서의 중재판정의 강제집행제도상의 문제점 및 한국 측 대응방안
무역학회지
2011 .06
-
중국과 특별행정구 간 중재판정 상호 집행을 위한협정에 관한 연구
무역연구
2015 .01
-
중국, 홍콩, 마카오, 대만 상호 간 중재판정 국적결정기준에 관한 연구
중재연구
2019 .01
-
우리나라와 중국 중재법에서 중재판정의 취소사유에 관한 연구
중재연구
2006 .01
-
한일 중재법상 중재판정의 비교법적 고찰
중재연구
2006 .01
-
THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN KOREA
국제거래와 법
2010 .04
-
중국의 섭외 및 외국중재판정 강제집행제도 연구
중재연구
2005 .01
-
Interim Measures in Arbitration and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Korea and China
중재연구
2016 .01
-
외국중재판정의 집행판결에서 나타난 집행거부사유에 관한 고찰
중재연구
2004 .01
-
중국의 중재법상 중재기관 약정과 관련한 중재합의 유효요건에 관한 사례연구
무역학회지
2007 .06
-
우리나라 판례에 나타난 외국중재판정 집행거부사유
법학논총
2010 .02
-
U.S. Courts’ Review of Article V(1)(b) under the New York Convention for the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
중재연구
2014 .01
-
중국과 대만간 중재판정의 상호집행에 관한 연구
중재연구
2009 .01
-
중국에 있어서 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행 거절 사유인 공서와 법의 지배
중재연구
2008 .01
-
우리나라에서 외국중재판정의 승인과 집행에 관한 고찰
중재연구
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
중국의 국영무역제도 운영에 관한 연구
하현수
,
윤충원
,
유찬확
관세학회지
2007
.08
중국 대외무역대리제도의 법률 적용에 관한 연구
윤충원
,
하현수
,
박종철
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business & Commerce
2009
.09
중국 내륙과 홍콩 상호간 중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 연구
성성
,
하현수
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business & Commerce
2016
.12
양안(兩岸) 상호간 중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 연구
성성
,
하현수
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business & Commerce
2017
.04
양안사지(兩岸四地) 상호간 투자분쟁 해결제도에 관한 연구
하현수
관세학회지
2015
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-326-003706810