국제상사중재와 국제소송의 경합과 병행절차에 관한 연구− 로테르담 규칙을 중심으로 −

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.