On the Possibilities and Limitations of Arbitration Punishment

Zhu Fuyong 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.2

Independence and impartiality are the operating core of an arbitration disciplinary mechanism. Due to many factors, illegalities and improper acts in arbitration cases are facts of life in our country, and have greatly damaged the credibility of arbitration. It is necessary for us to perfect the operating mechanism of arbitration discipline from the four pluralistic progressive aspects of disciplining the cause externalization, disciplining the subject duality, the quasi-judicature of disciplinary procedures and the disciplining measures so that the populace can experience fairness and justice in every case. We should perfect the supporting measures such as the strict selection conditions and procedures of arbitrators, improving the quality of the arbitrator team, exploring the management mechanisms and strengthening the evaluation dynamic. An examination is a general investigation and evaluation so as to provide encouragement for being continually engaged as arbitrators, but it does not provide an objective basis of arbitration discipline. It is urgent to perfect the arbitration guarantee system on the basis of meeting the material needs of the arbitrators so as to enhance the sense of professional rank and honour of arbitration.

On the Possibilities and Limitations of Arbitration Punishment

Zhu Fuyong 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.3

Independence and impartiality are the operating core of an arbitration disciplinary mechanism. Due to many factors, illegalities and improper acts in arbitration cases are facts of life in our country, and have greatly damaged the credibility of arbitration. It is necessary for us to perfect the operating mechanism of arbitration discipline from the four pluralistic progressive aspects of disciplining the cause externalization, disciplining the subject duality, the quasi-judicature of disciplinary procedures and the disciplining measures so that the populace can experience fairness and justice in every case. We should perfect the supporting measures such as the strict selection conditions and procedures of arbitrators, improving the quality of the arbitrator team, exploring the management mechanisms and strengthening the evaluation dynamic. An examination is a general investigation and evaluation so as to provide encouragement for being continually engaged as arbitrators, but it does not provide an objective basis of arbitration discipline. It is urgent to perfect the arbitration guarantee system on the basis of meeting the material needs of the arbitrators so as to enhance the sense of professional rank and honour of arbitration.

Rethinking the Non-enforcement System of Chinese Arbitration Awards

Zhu Fuyong,Jiang Runmin 동아대학교 법학연구소 2021 東亞法學 Vol.- No.90

현재 중국 중재 재결 비집행 제도(the system of non-enforcement of arbitral awards)는 피신청자에 대한 권리구제의 기능을 포함할 뿐만 아니라, 중재집행에 대한 국가의 사법감독 목적도 담고 있다. 하지만 피신청자가 집행단계에서 제기한 항변사유는 통상 사법감독과 관련이 없으며, 또한 피신청자의 항변사유가 성립되면 중재판결의 집행력과 기판력을 상실하게 될 것이다. 이런 인식의 편차와 제도의 구조적 문제는 재판권과 집행권의 충돌로 이어질 수밖에 없다. 중재와 집행의 법리에 따라 집행력은 국가 사법기관에 전속되며, 중재는 민간 재량으로 집행 가능하려면 반드시 사법 기관의 심사와 확인을 거쳐야 한다. 따라서 중재판결의 적법성 심사를 재판조직에 맡기고, 제한된 심사원칙(the principle of limited review)을 따르고, 독립적이고 정당한 확인심사절차(confirmation review procedure)를 설치해야 한다. 즉 중재판결과 중재에 대한 중국 인민법원의 재정은 공동으로 집행근거를 구성하며, 외국의 입법경험을 참고로 하여 중재취소와 심사신청․집행신청의 연계, 중재집행의 사법심사 방식 및 각하신청과 심사 비집행 등 측면에서 중재집행 사법심사의 체계화를 구축하고 중재 법률제도의 입법표현을 보완하는데 있다. 그것으로 하여금 법을 준용하도록 하고 입체적인 중재 판결 비집행 제도를 발전시켜 이를 실무에 옮기게 한다. 이것은 중재사법감독에 대한 국가의 객관적 필요를 충족시킬 뿐 아니라, 재판권과 집행권이 분리된 집행 체계를 더욱 세분화하고 확실하게 할 것이다. Currently, the system of non-enforcement of arbitral awards in China not only includes the function of rights relief of the respondent, but also contains the purpose of judicial supervision of arbitration enforcement by the state. However, in general, the counterplea cause raised by the respondent in the enforcement stage is not related to judicial supervision. Moreover, the establishment of the counterplea cause raised by the respondent will lead to the loss of the corresponding enforcement and RES judicata of the arbitral award. Furthermore, these kinds of misunderstanding and structural problems of the system inevitably lead to the conflict between judicial power and enforcement power. According to the legal principles of arbitration and enforcement, the enforcement power belongs to the national judicial organs. Arbitration, as a private award, must be enforceable and must be reviewed and confirmed by the judicial organs. Consequently, the legality review of arbitral awards should be handed over to the judicial organization, and at the same time, following the principle of limited review, independent and proper confirmation review procedure should be set up, that is, the arbitral award and the People"s Court"s ruling on arbitration together constitute the basis for enforcement. Drawing lessons from overseas experiences, the systematization of judicial review of arbitration enforcement should be constructed from a series of aspects, including the connection between revocation of arbitration and application review and enforcement, the way of judicial review of arbitration enforcement, and rejection of application and non-enforcement. Also, the legislative expression of arbitration legal system should be perfected to make it have laws to follow. On this basis, the three-dimensional system of non-enforcement of arbitral awards should be developed and applied in practice. This not only meets the objective needs of the state for judicial supervision of arbitration, but also further refines and implements the enforcement mechanism of separating judicial power from enforcement power.

On the Construction of Technology - Embedded View of Authenticity of Blockchain Evidence

Zhu Fuyong,Wang Yaduo 동아대학교 법학연구소 2022 東亞法學 Vol.- No.97

『인민법원 온라인 소송 규칙』에서 블록체인의 증거 보관에 대해 ‘기술적으로 자체 증명’이라는 속성을 명확하게 규정하고 블록체인 전자 증거의 살실상의 추정 효력을 인정하였다. 그러나 실제로 블록체인 기술의 사용은 정적화 및 단말화되었으며 증거 보관 플랫폼의 자격 기준도 일치하지 않았으므로 분쟁 사실 확인의 효과를 어느 정도 억제하였다. 이에 본 연구는 기술진화론의 관점을 바탕으로 비이성적 진실성, 이성적 진실성, 기술보조적 진실성이라는 전자 증거의 진실성의 역사적 발전과정을 정리하여 검토하고 추정 진실을 이론적 기초로 하여 사법연맹체인(Judicial Consortium Blockchain)을 기술적 기반으로 한 기술 삽입형 진실성을 제시한다. 제도적 혁신 측면에서 체계적 해석 및 문의적 해석을 사용하여 블록체인 전자 증거의 원본 해석 경로를 개선하며 규범 문서를 통합하고 플랫폼 자격 심사 규칙을 통일시키며 전문가 인력 자원 배치를 강화하고 기술 장벽을 제거한다. 앞에 제시한 3개 측면으로 과학 기술과 사법의 융합을 추진하여 스마트 사법 시대에 전자 증거의 진실성을 기술적으로 확인하는 데 높은 정확성 및 효율성을 이루고 개별 사건의 진실 발견 및 사법 공정을 추진하고자 한다. The Online Litigation Rules for the People’s Courts define the “technical self-certification” attribute of blockchain evidence preservation, and recognize the presumption of authenticity of blockchain electronic evidence. However, in practice, the static and terminal use of blockchain technology and the inconsistent qualification standards of evidence preservation platforms have inhibited fact-finding process to a certain extent. From the perspective of technological evolution, this paper reviews the historical evolution process of view of authenticity of electronic evidence: prerational view of authenticity, rational view of authenticity,technologyassisted view of authenticity and proposes the technology-embedded view of authenticity with presumption of authenticity as the theoretical basis and judicial consortium blockchain as the technical support. In terms of institutional innovation, this paper adopts system interpretation and contextual interpretation to improve the original interpretation path of blockchain electronic evidence; integrates normative documents and unifies platform qualification review rules; strengthens expert manpower allocation and eliminates technical barriers. Based on the three aspects mentioned above, this research promotes the integration of science, technology and justice, and achieve high precision and efficiency of electronic evidence technology authentication in the era of intelligent justice, and to promote case disputes unveiling and fair justice.

On the Optimization of Judicial Review Path for China's PPP Arbitration Agreement

Zhu Fuyong,강윤민 현대중국학회 2023 現代中國硏究 Vol.25 No.1

In China, PPP agreements involve two k inds of administrative and civil and commercial legal relations. Different courts have different understandings of the nature of PPP arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the agreement, and whether the agreement is against the social public interest, and have different review results, which have a certain negative impact on the credibility of arbitration and judicial authority. With the increasing participation of foreign enterprises in China's domestic PPP projects, especially the increasing participation of PPP projects along the "One Belt and One Road", and the steady progress of the Supreme People's Court in issuing the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases, it is particularly important and urgent to focus on the judicial review of China's PPP arbitration agreements. To this end, the core of PPP agreement is the perspective of social capital participation, the characteristics of commercial contracts in PPP agreement and the perspective of PPP protocol practice, on the basis of analyzing the PPP arbitration agreement as a civil and commercial contract, to clarify the essential attributes of civil and commercial contracts in the PPP arbitration agreement, from the equality of the subject status of the agreement, the purpose of the agreement is to realize their own rights and interests, the content of the agreement is civil rights and civil obligations, and the agreement of the parties in the agreement, to determine the arbitrability of the PPP agreement. At the same time, it is clear that the content of the arbitration award shall not violate social public order, good customs and the common interests of all members of society, And the basic systems and principles of our law, the basic principles of social and economic life. In addition, the "change of situation" provisions in the agreement and the laws, regulations and rules involved in the agreement also need to be paid close attention to, so as to bring the PPP arbitration agreement into the scientific, standardized and orderly judicial review track, and boost the modernization of the arbitration system and arbitration governance capacity.

On the Adjustment of Prior Consultation of the Interests in China’s Personal Information Transfer

ZHU FUYONG(주복용),LIU MENGYUN(유몽운) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2024 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.46

디지털 경제의 발전에 있어 정보의 질서 있는 유통은 정보가 가진 바른가치를 충분히 발휘할 수 있게 한다. 이러한 점에 기초할 때 개인정보의 이전은 정보주체의 권리보호에 중점을 두어야만 정보의 자주성은 물론, 플랫폼 선택의 자유 및 정보 재이용에 대한 법적 보장이 가능하다. 또 이는 정보의 관리 및 통제 플랫폼의 정보독점행위를 방지하거나 감소시킬 수 있다. 현실에 있어 개인정보의 이전 이익 실현에 있어 관련법은 거시적인 규정에 그치고 있어 정보의 이동과정에서 정보식별기준이 광범위하여 개인정보의 이전이 제한된다. 그 밖에 정보이전에 있어 정보플랫폼과 개인 간의 충돌문제가 날로 심각해지면서 개인정보 이전 이익의 실현에도 많은 어려움이 발생하고 있다. 그러므로 개인정보의 이전 이익을 실현하기 위해서는 현행의 거시적 규정을 정보주체를 중심축으로 하여 사전협상 메커니즘이 구축되도록 하는 법률개정이 필요하다. 이에 본 연구는 개인정보의 이전 이익의 합리적 법률개정에 필요한 (1) 정보플랫폼과 정보주체 간의 평등지위 평가, (2) 정보 이전 과정에서의 사전협상메커니즘 구축, (3) 정보 이전 이익의 최대화를 위한 정보 이동범위의 확정 등에 대하여 현행법의 한계와 개선방안에 대하여 논의한다. 이를 통해 그동안 중국의 개인정보 이동에 있어 발생하는 다양한 문제를 해결함으로써 개인정보의 안전성과 활용성이 개선될 것이라 본다. In the process of digital economic development, information can only give full play to its own value in an orderly flow. The confirmation of the right to personal information transfer addresses the inherent needs over personal information autonomy, freedom of choice of platforms and information reuse. While this reduces the information monopoly behavior of the information control platform, and significantly enhances the flow of information, the realization of the right to transfer personal information remains challenging. The current regulations are still at a macro-level, offering limited guidance for specific practical implementation. As a result, the transfer of personal information is dominated by platforms, the personal information is easily monopolized by platforms with advantages. Under this background, individuals are unable to transfer the personal information they need, and disputes over the transfer of information between the two parties intensify, making it difficult to realize the rights and interests arising from the transfer of personal information. In order to realize the rights and interests of personal information transfer, it is necessary to make up for the insufficiency of macro-control, reduce the lagging effect of the post disputes on the transfer of personal information, adopt a micro-individual perspective, give full play to the subjective initiative of inter-subjects, and construct a limited mechanism of prior consultation. In the “incomplete contract”, it provides limited negotiation space for disputes such as the scope and format of information transfer, independently balances the interests between subjects, and alleviates the conflict of information transfer between platforms and individuals. in order to explore the determination of the scope of information transfer and the adaptation of transfer formats between different industries. During this period, we should make use of the supervision system to maintain the relative equality of the negotiating status of the subjects and ensure the appropriate balance of the interests of both sides, so as to ensure the safety and order of information transfer.