The Challenge of Arbitral Awards in Pakistan

Sohaib Mukhtar 한국중재학회 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

在中国法视角下研究仲裁裁决的效力 - 以仲裁裁决的实质效力为中心

류웬리 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2016 국제법무 Vol.8 No.1

Arbitration plays an increasingly significant role in the area of commercial arbitration settlement due to some characters of arbitration, i.e. efficiency and finality. It is commonly recognized that giving legal effects to arbitral award will not only conform to the expectation of the concerning parties, but will be beneficial to the execution of the court. It is not difficult to reach a consensus that the arbitral award is binding, so all the countries regulate that the arbitral award is final and binding in their legislations to represent the orientation of supporting arbitration. In China, the research on the effects of arbitral award is usually based on the study of court decisions. However, the arbitral award is different from the court decision, owing to the reason that the arbitral award cannot be enforced by the arbitration institution if one party refuses to implement the award. In order to clarify the scope of recognition and enforcement of arbitral award, it is necessary and urgent to pay attention to the research on the effects of arbitral award. This essay starts on Chinese “international” criteria for the judging the international commercial arbitration agreement, and then introduce how China People’s court identify the nationality of arbitral award. In addition, this essay also includes the content of effect of the arbitral award, especially focuses on the res judicata and the effect of enforcing. The reason why the res judicata and the effect of enforcing is important is that every different theory on the scope of these two effects of the arbitral award will lead to difference of the procedure of recognition and enforcement of arbitral award. Therefore, summarizing the content of effect of arbitral award is beneficial to the arbitration development of China, and also has theoretical value and practical meaning on the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitral award in China. 仲裁的优势中一裁终局的特性使得仲裁在民商事领域纠纷的解决方面发挥了日益重要的的角色。仲裁过程不是目的,将仲裁裁决的结果加以实现才是当事人期待的结果,毕竟当事人希望的不是“一纸裁决”。各国的仲裁立法出于对仲裁当事人利益的考虑,都在立法中规定了“一裁终局”,体现了对仲裁制度支持的普遍精神。要实现仲裁裁决的内容以此来保护仲裁当事人的利益,仲裁裁决能否得以承认和执行,以及承认与执行的范围如何都成为各国针对仲裁裁决理论研究的重点。在中国,针对仲裁裁决的效力理论研究主要着眼于法院判决的效力研究,然而本质上,仲裁裁决与法院判决的效果并不相同,因为仲裁机关对仲裁裁决没有强制执行力,所以对仲裁裁决效力的专门研究十分必要且刻不容缓。 研究仲裁裁决的效力内容首先需要了解仲裁裁决效力的来源,鉴于仲裁协议法律性质中具有诉讼性和契约性,仲裁裁决的效力来源于仲裁协议和法律规定,讨论外国仲裁裁决的效力内容则要明确何为外国仲裁裁决,基于何种仲裁协议才会产生外国仲裁裁决。本文是研究中国视角下的仲裁裁决的效力,故而本文首先介绍中国的国际商事仲裁协议的“国际性”判断标准,然后介绍中国对仲裁裁决国籍的判断标准,最后从商事仲裁效力的效力内容入手,着墨于裁决的既判力与执行力,原因在于各国对仲裁裁决的既判力与执行力学说会对仲裁裁决的承认和执行程序产生影响。从理论上厘清仲裁裁决的效力内容,对于我国仲裁制度的进一步发展,促进我国对国际商事仲裁裁决承认与执行的健康发展具有理论价值和实践意义。

The Challenge of Arbitral Awards in Pakistan

Mukhtar, Sohaib,Mastoi, Shafqat Mahmood Khan The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

관할법원에 송부·보관되지 않은 중재판정의 효력

오창석 韓國仲裁學會 2005 중재연구 Vol.15 No.3

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such Provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the "form", requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of and arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

일본법상 외국중재판정의 승인집행 -적용법규와 승인집행거부를 중심으로-

김언숙 한국중재학회 2010 중재연구 Vol.20 No.3

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

국제중재판정의 취소사유의 확장 또는 제한 -법원에 의한 본안의 심사와 관련하여-

이호원 국제거래법학회 2012 國際去來法硏究 Vol.21 No.2

On international arbitration, it is generally admitted that arbitral awards may be set aside only in the State where the award was rendered. However, the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards differ from State to State. A considerable number of countries have adopted, in varying degrees, the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards laid down in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. On the one hand, countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. expanded the grounds for setting them aside and permitted judicial review on the merits of arbitral awards. On the other hand, States such as France and Belgium strictly limited the grounds for, or even eliminated the possibility of, setting aside arbitral awards. The problem occurs mainly in the States where judicial review on the merits is allowed either by legislation as in the U.K., by case law as in the U.S., or by agreements of the parties to expand the grounds for setting aside. There is a view that judicial review on the merits of arbitral awards prevents arbitrary awards and, therefore, is a reasonable supervisory means in the arbitral process. However, there also exists a view that judicial review is against the will of the parties who sought the decision by the arbitral panel, not by the court, and delays the resolution of the disputes. This debate is not to be decided theoretically, as the actual outcome might differ depending on the State where enforcement or cancellation of arbitral awards is sought. All things considered, it should be noted (i) that it is necessary to watch the legislation and cases of many States on this issue carefully, (ii) that it is desirable to avoid expansion of the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards by agreements of the parties, and (iii) that in cases where the jurisdiction of arbitral panel or public policy matters, judicial review on these issues might be unavoidable.

중재판정 취소에 관한 우리나라 판례의 태도

최성수(Choi Sung-Soo) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2009 東亞法學 Vol.- No.45

According to the Korean Arbitration Act Art. 36(2), a party may file a lawsuit for cancellation of an arbitral award on the following grounds. There are 4 grounds for which the party making the application should furnish proof and 2 grounds that the court finds at its own discretion. First, a party was incompetent or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the laws of this State. Second, the party making the application was not given proper notice of appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case. Third, the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of submission to arbitration. Fourth, the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or Korean Arbitration Act. Fifth, the subject matter of the dispute is not the one in its nature to be settled by arbitration under the laws of this State. Sixth, the award is in conflict with the public policy. Korean Courts' current trends towards Challenging Arbitral Awards show that the courts interpret the reasons for Challenging Arbitral Awards relatively in a strict manner. Thus, the cases recognizing the Challenging Arbitral Awards belongs to the minority. Korean courts as a whole recognize the effect of an arbitral agreement widely, acknowledge the independence of arbitration clause, take a generous attitude towards the reasons of Arbitral Awards and also introduce the concept of international public order and morals into Arbitral Awards. Conclusionally, the courts take part in the international trend in the area of Arbitral Awards. Afterwards, an attitude like that will lead the present trends. For the sufficient fulfillment of the objectives of International Commercial Arbitration, we need reducing the reasons for Challenging Arbitral Awards, and we can make arbitration be used to the maximum extent. We also need more meticulous observation and care is required to catch what is not subsumed by the current cases. On the other hand, we need to seek the trends of cases steadily and need practical preparation in the field of Challenging Arbitral Awards.

중재판정의 효력에 관한 연구

강수미 한국중재학회 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party’s autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court’s judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings. 당사자 간의 중재합의에 기초한 사적 중재절차에서 이루어진 중재판정에 어떠한 효력을 인정할 것인지는 그 중재판정이 이루어진 국가의 입법정책에 의해 정해질 사항인데, 우리나라 중재법 제35조 본문에 따르면 당사자 간에 법원의 확정판결과 동일한 효력을 인정하고 있다. 중재판정에 이러한 효력이 인정되기 위해서는 중재판정이 법정의 요건을 구비하여 성립되어야 하고, 그 효력이 발생되어야 함은 물론 확정되어야 한다. 중재법이 사적 중재절차에서 이루어진 중재판정에 확정판결과 동일한 효력, 즉 기판력을 인정하는 것은 분쟁해결의 실효성을 확보함으로써 법적 안정성을 도모하기 위한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 다만 중재판정의 효력의 구체적인 내용을 검토함에 있어서는 중재합의에 근거하여 개시된 중재절차에서 이루어진 중재판정은 당사자의 의사에 따른 것으로 볼 수 있다는 중재제도 자체의 특성 및 당사자가 중재합의를 통해 해결하고자 하였던 분쟁의 실체를 고려하여야 한다. 2016년 개정을 통해 신설된 중재법 제35조 단서규정과 관련해서는, 중재판정의 승인·집행이 거절되는 경우에는 확정판결과 동일한 효력이 인정되지 않는다는 것을 중재판정에 승인·집행거부사유가 존재하는 경우로 볼 것인지, 아니면 중재판정에 승인·집행거부사유가 존재함을 이유로 승인·집행신청을 기각한 결정이 확정된 경우를 의미하는 경우로 볼 것인지가 문제된다. 전자의 의미로 해석할 경우 중재법상의 중재판정취소의 소와의 관계나 무효와 취소의 구별 등을 제대로 설명하기 어려운 측면이 있다. 따라서 위 단서규정의 의미를 중재판정의 승인·집행신청을 기각한 결정이 확정된 때를 의미하는 것으로 이해하는 것이 중재판정취소의 소가 현존하는 현행 중재법의 체제를 유지할 수 있는 해석일 것이다. 취소사유가 존재하는 중재판정에 대하여 승인·집행이 허용되어서는 안 되고, 승인·집행이 허용되어서는 안 되는 중재판정은 취소되어야 하는데, 중재법상 중재판정의 취소와 승인·집행은 별개의 제도로 인정되고 있는 결과, 동일한 중재판정이 이중의 규율을 받아 이에 대한 법원의 판단이 경합하거나 모순·저촉될 염려가 있으므로, 이를 적절히 조절할 필요가 있다.

2016년 개정 중재법의 중재판정 집행에 관한 문제점

윤진기 한국중재학회 2016 중재연구 Vol.26 No.4

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korea Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, th new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgemen procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, th new act is stil not arbitration friendly. First of al, there are various problems in the new act because it does not aprove that an arbitral award can be a schuldtiel (tile o enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discused: efect of arbitral award aproval to res judicata of enforcement decision, diferent trial proces and result for sam ground, posibilty of abuse of litgation for seting aside arbitral awards and delay o enforcement caused by seting aside, infringement of arbitration customer’s right to b informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia The new arbitration act aded a proviso on article 35 (Efect of Arbitral Awards) Acording to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shal have the same efec on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 3 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal o recogniton or enforcement acording to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have th same efect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitra awards have not recognised or ben enforced acording to article 38, the arbitral awards d not have the same efect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the cour In the case of the former, the parties canot file action for seting aside arbitral awards i article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of seting aside arbitral awards can be tried in diferent tria proces with or without plead acording to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progres o enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of seting aside arbitra awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litgation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is stil rom for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there stil remains action of seting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards stil can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not god for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as wel as cost. If the arbitration instiution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer’s right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibilty of arbitration instiution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad efect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system. 이 논문은 2016.5.29.에 통과된 개정 중재법상의 중재판정 집행에 관한 문제점을 다루고 있다. 개정 중재법에서는 중재판정 집행절차를 집행판결에서 집행결정으로 개선함으로써 중재판정의 간이하고 신속한 집행을 도모하고 있지만, 여전히 중재판정의 집행권원성을 인정하지 않고 있기 때문에 여러 가지 문제점이 존재한다. 특히 개정 중재법은 제35조 단서에 중재판정의 효력을 제한하는 규정을 두었는데, 이 단서 규정으로 인하여 중재제도의 근간이라고 할 수 있는 중재판정 취소에 관한 규정을 사문화시키고, 기존의 중재판정 취소와 중재판정의 승인 및 집행 거부에 관한 법적인 틀을 바꾸어버린 결과를 초래할 수 있게 되었는바, 이 논문에서는 이를 피할 수 있는 새로운 해석론을 제시하고 있다. 이 외에, 중재집행 절차에서 야기될 수 있는 절차의 지연, 비용 증가, 중재 홍보 과정에 발생할 수 있는 법적 책임, 임시적 처분의 집행절차와 관련된 문제 등 개정 중재법의 제반 문제점을 분석하고 있다.

중재판정의 집행결정절차에 관한 검토

전병서 사법발전재단 2019 사법 Vol.1 No.49

Due to the autonomous nature of an arbitral dispute solution, the likelihood that a party satisfies the obligations of an arbitral award might be higher than that of a party complying with a judgment of the court. However, there still remains a need for a procedure to execute the arbitral award through compulsive means in the event of the failure of enforcement. While an arbitral award seems to have its own executing authority considering its equivalent legal effect with a final judgment, allowing it to function as an independent title of execution, the arbitral award is not treated equally as the judgment of the court when it comes to the enforcement procedure, due to its nature as a private trial. That is, the court’s declaration of enforcement is required in order to enforce the award. According to the Arbitration Act, which was amended by Act No. 14176, May 29, 2016 and entered into force on November 30, 2016, the procedure for enforcing an arbitral award has been shifted from previously requiring the court’s “judgment” to requiring the court’s “decision” with a view to expediting and simplifying the procedure. That is, under the current Arbitration Act, an arbitral award may be enforced by the court’s “enforcement decision,” rather than by an “enforcement judgment.” Thus, a party seeking enforcement of an arbitral award should file a claim for the court’s “decision” to allow the enforcement of an arbitral award (see Article 37(2) of the Arbitration Act). In view of the newly instituted enforcement decision procedure, this paper conducts a systematic review of the subject of enforcement decisions, documents required for the filing of a request for enforcement decisions, the method of deliberation, an immediate appeal on enforcement decisions, and the legal effect of enforcement decisions. Furthermore, the paper takes a look at the issue that may arise from different interpretations of the relevant provisions, such as whether a demurrer may raise an objection on the grounds of termination of claim (i.e., satisfaction of claim after an arbitral award is given), as well as the procedural legal principle concerning the relationship between an enforcement decision procedure and a procedure for revoking an arbitral award. The scarce amount of arbitration cases entailed by a small number of claims for enforcement decisions was the obstacle for an in-depth research on practical situations and the cases of proceedings, for which further research is needed. 중재판정은 당사자 사이에 자주적으로 선택된 분쟁해결 결과이므로 법원의 판결과 비교하면 임의로 이행될 비율이 높기는 하겠지만, 임의의 이행이 되지 못하는 경우를 위하여 최종적으로 강제적 수단에 의한 중재판정의 실현절차가 있어야 한다. 그런데 확정판결과 마찬가지 효력을 가지는 중재판정은 집행절차에서 그 자체 당연히 집행력도 인정되어 독립적으로 집행권원이 될 수 있을 것 같으나, 중재판정은 본래 사적인 재판이므로 집행의 관계에서 법원의 판결과 동일한 취급이 이루어지고 있는 것은 아니다. 추후에 법원에 의하여 집행이 가능하다는 선언을 받아 비로소 집행을 할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 이에 대하여 종래의 「중재법」에서는 ‘집행판결’에 의하도록 하였으나, 2016. 5. 29. 법률 제14176호로 개정된 「중재법」(2016. 11. 30. 시행)에서 절차의 간이화·신속화의 관점에서 중재판정의 집행절차를 판결절차에서 결정절차로 변경하였다. 즉, 현행 「중재법」상은 중재판정에 대하여 ‘집행판결’이 아닌, ‘집행결정’으로 법원이 허가하여야 집행을 할 수 있도록 하였다. 법원에 대하여 중재판정에 기한 집행을 허가한다는 취지의 결정(집행결정)을 구할 필요가 있다(중재법 제37조 제2항). 본 글에서는 새로 도입된 집행결정절차의 흐름에 따라 집행결정의 대상, 집행결정신청 시의 제출서류, 심리의 방식, 집행결정에 대한 즉시항고, 집행결정의 효력 등을 체계적으로 살펴보았다. 나아가 규정을 둘러싸고 해석의 여지가 있는 쟁점인 집행결정절차에서 중재판정 성립 후의 변제 등 청구권의 소멸 등과 같은 사유를 청구이의사유로 주장할 수 있는지 여부, 집행결정절차와 중재판정 취소절차와의 관계 등의 절차적 법리도 살펴보았다. 중재사건 자체도 많지 않고 따라서 중재판정의 집행결정을 구하는 사건도 많지 않은 현황에서 실무적 상황과 재판례에 대하여 충분한 검토를 할 수 없는 한계가 있었는데, 미진한 부분은 앞으로 추가적 과제로 삼고자 한다.