미국의 중재판정 취소에 관한 연구: 판례법과 제정법의 조화를 중심으로

This study is to vindicate the vacation of arbitral awards in the United States. It focuses on the harmony of case law with statutory law of the United States. Until the early twentieth century, the American legal system, having adopted the English common law view, harbored an hostile attitude toward arbitration. The purpose of Federal Arbitration Law(FAA) of United States enacted in 1925 is to eliminate the hostile attitude of courts toward arbitration. The congress is to enforce arbitration agreements into which parties had entered and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. The structure of vacating grounds of arbitration awards has two layers. One is the vacating grounds originated from statutory origins such as Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) and Uniform Arbitration Act, and the other, the vacating grounds originated from non-statutory, case law background. For a while, the vacatur of case law has co-existed with those of statutory ground for the vacating arbitration awards. After the advent of Hall Street, however, the justification of vacating ground of case law weakens. Post-Hall Street decisions of circuit courts show that there are a couple of routes to deal with manifest disregard of law. One of them is the harmonization of the vacating ground of case law with statutory ground. It seems to be that the manifest disregard of law and public policy exception show the possibility of survival after Hall Street. However, the other non-statutory ground for vacation of arbitration awards have no firm ground for vacating arbitration awards after Hall Street.