경쟁법 위반문제의 중재적격성에 대한 미국 대법원의 입장 - Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth 사건을 중심으로 -

The growth of international trade depends on the contracting parties' ability to ensure neutrality and predictability when resolving international disputes. The use of arbitration is increasingly popular as a method of resolving international trade disputes. It is due in part to the perceived speed, efficiency, and informality of the proceedings, as well as the growing reluctance among businesses to litigate in foreign courts. Notwithstanding a national policy encouraging arbitration of commercial disputes, most countries maintain that certain public law issues must be resolved by the courts in order to protect the public interest involved. In certains countries including U.S.A., however, it's not clear whether disputes involving the economic laws such as antitrust law are arbitrable. Considering not only the position which the U.S.A. hold in international trade but also the frequency that apply extraterritorially its antitrust law, whether american judiciary perceive disputes involving the antitrust law arbitrable or not will have great effect on the economy and law of U.S.A as well as those of other countries. This article try to analyse this problem through the position of United States Supreme Court in the Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. case. The Court had no quarrel with the American Safety doctrine as it applied to domestic transactions but concluded that 'concerns of international comity,' respect for the abilities of transnational arbitral tribunals, and the need for predictability in the resolution of international commercial disputes require enforcement of international arbitration agreements. The Mitsubishi decision portends a policy favoring arbitration which will open the door to increased international trade with American parties due to the certainty of enforcement of their arbitration agreements.