메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국경영법률학회 경영법률 경영법률 제24권 제3호
발행연도
2014.1
수록면
315 - 352 (38page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
As with exclusive jurisdiction agreements, commercial parties may choose a neutral seat of arbitration on the basis that the arbitration are very specialized and experienced in maritime matters, have a speedy and effective procedure for arbitration, a good reputation for integrity and are effectively supported by an efficient court system. The choice of seat may indicate the court system which will support those arbitration proceedings, for example, in relation to any right of appeal from the arbitral award. The lack of an interface between the EC Jurisdiction Regulation and the 1958 New York Convention has led to the granting of anti-suit injunctions by the English court to restrain a party from pursuing proceedings in breach of a London arbitration agreement. The European Court of Justice has held that it is not consistent with the EC Jurisdiction Regulation to grant such an injunction to restrain a party from pursuing proceedings in the courts of an EU Member State, but such a remedy is still available where the proceedings are in the courts of a non-Member State. Chapter 15 (Arbitration) of the Rotterdam Rules does not address the issue of which tribunal to determine the validity of arbitration agreement. This can lead to very significant problems as it may result in parallel arbitration and court proceedings with the possibility of a conflicting arbitration award and court judgment with difficulties as to enforcement.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (42)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0