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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2006.11
- 수록면
- 7 - 34 (28page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
At its thirty-ninth session in July 2006, the UNCITRAL adopted its Working Group II's suggestions on the revised provisions of articles 7, 17, 35(2) of the Model Law and on the introduction of a new provision on interpretation of the Model Law as article 2 A.
The Working Group II has been considering on how to update domestic arbitration laws on the question of the writing requirement for the arbitration agreement and interim measures of protection since its thirty-second session in March 2000.
As for the issue of writing requirement, the Working Group II decided to present to the Commission two options at its forty-forth session in January 2006. The first option describes detailed provisions on the writing requirements. With these revised provisions, arbitration agreements made orally or exchanged through data messages could satisfy the writing requirement. The second option deletes the writing requirement altogether.
The Commission has also adopted a suggestion made by its Working Group II that “a modified understanding of the writing requirement be reflected in article 35(2).” The revised article 35(2) provides that only the original award or a certified copy thereof be supplied for the enforcement of an award.
As for the issue of interim measures of protection, the Working Group II agreed to create a new chapter, numbered chapter IV bis of the Model Law, for the provisions of interim measures and preliminary orders. The concept of preliminary order is devised in reflection of the strong objection to the idea of ex parte interim measures. The Commission decided to accept the suggested provisions to be inserted into the Model Law as a new chapter IV A, for theenforcement of interim measures by an arbitral tribunal to be made through a competent court, for court-ordered interim measures in support of an arbitration, and for the introduction of the regime of preliminary order into the new chapter. Under the new regime, interim measures could be recognised or enforced by a competent court, but, the preliminary order shall not be subject to enforcement by a court.
The Working Group II has been considering on how to update domestic arbitration laws on the question of the writing requirement for the arbitration agreement and interim measures of protection since its thirty-second session in March 2000.
As for the issue of writing requirement, the Working Group II decided to present to the Commission two options at its forty-forth session in January 2006. The first option describes detailed provisions on the writing requirements. With these revised provisions, arbitration agreements made orally or exchanged through data messages could satisfy the writing requirement. The second option deletes the writing requirement altogether.
The Commission has also adopted a suggestion made by its Working Group II that “a modified understanding of the writing requirement be reflected in article 35(2).” The revised article 35(2) provides that only the original award or a certified copy thereof be supplied for the enforcement of an award.
As for the issue of interim measures of protection, the Working Group II agreed to create a new chapter, numbered chapter IV bis of the Model Law, for the provisions of interim measures and preliminary orders. The concept of preliminary order is devised in reflection of the strong objection to the idea of ex parte interim measures. The Commission decided to accept the suggested provisions to be inserted into the Model Law as a new chapter IV A, for theenforcement of interim measures by an arbitral tribunal to be made through a competent court, for court-ordered interim measures in support of an arbitration, and for the introduction of the regime of preliminary order into the new chapter. Under the new regime, interim measures could be recognised or enforced by a competent court, but, the preliminary order shall not be subject to enforcement by a court.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 임시적 처분과 사전 명령
Ⅲ. 중재합의의 서면성
Ⅳ. 제35조 제2항
Ⅴ. 해석 규정 신설
Ⅵ. 해석문건
Ⅶ. 평가
【참고문헌】
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
국제상사중재에서 임의보전조치 논의에 관한 고찰 : UNCITRAL 국제상사중재모델법 제17조를 중심으로
무역학회지
2004 .10
-
미국중재에서의 임시처분에 관한 고찰
중재연구
2009 .01
-
임시적 처분과 보전처분에 관한 유엔국제무역법위원회(UNCITRAL)의 논의와 우리 중재법에 미칠 영향
한림법학 FORUM
2004 .12
-
국제상사중재에서 중재판정부에 의한 임의중재판정의 집행에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2010 .05
-
UNCITRAL 모델중재법상 임시적 보호처분의 개정방향
중재연구
2004 .01
-
국제상사중재에 관한 UNCITRAL 모델법의 개정동향
중재연구
2006 .01
-
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM FOR INTERIM MEASURES OF RELIEF IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION : WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE UNCITRAL REGIME
국제거래와 법
2011 .10
-
국제상사중재에서 중재판정부에 의한 임시적 처분에 관한 고찰 : 우리나라개정중재법과UNCITRAL모델중재법을중심으로
무역상무연구
2017 .12
-
국제상사중재에서 중재판정부의 권한과 임시적 처분에 관한 연구
중재연구
2008 .01
-
중재에 있어서 법원의 역할
무역상무연구
2006 .05
-
중재인의 임시적 처분 및 이에 대한 법원 역할의 비교법적 분석
국제사법연구
2017 .06
-
국제상사중재에서 중재판정부의 임시적 보전처분에 관한 연구 : AAA/ICDR을 중심으로
무역학회지
2008 .06
-
국제상사중재에서 잠정적 구제조치에 관한 연구
무역연구
2011 .01
-
UNCITRAL의 최근 동향 : 1976년 UNCITRAL 중재규칙 개정안의 제3회독을 중심으로
중재연구
2010 .01
-
UNCITRAL 모델중재법 및 중재규칙 개정에 따른 국내법 개정의 필요성 검토
국제사법연구
2010 .12
-
2016년 중재법의 주요 개정내용과 문제점
법학연구
2017 .08
-
UNCITRAL 개정 중재규칙에 관한 연구 : 주요 개정내용을 중심으로
무역상무연구
2012 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0