The purpose of this paper is to examine the problems in exercising buyer's right to claim damages for the breach of contract by the seller in international sales contract and to suggest reasonable counter-measures. The main contents are as follows: First, this author analyzed the principles of the seller's liability for damages in detail and examined the methods for the calculation of damages on the basis of Arts.74~77. As these articles are found to be insufficient in practical application, this author further examined the UNIDROIT Principles(2004) to confirm whether these Principles can fill the gaps of CISG or not, which turned out their gap-filling functions. Second, this author tried to find any expected problems when the buyer resorts to the right to claim damages in case of the seller's breach of contract including the estimation of damages, the burden of proof, causation, the proof of appropriateness for avoidance, the proof of buyer's obligation to mitigate the loss and so on. The reason is that these problems may cause a lot of difficulties in real business. As result, many buyers have given up their reasonable rights to claim damages so far. Finally, from the buyer's perspective, this author would like to suggest a liquidated damage clause(LD Clause) which gives the buyer to received a specified sum in case of seller's non-performance and/or a demand guarantee(or standby L/C) which guarantees buyer to secure unconditional payment independent of the underlying contract. For these purposes, the buyer should try to insert the LD Clause and/or Guarantee Clause in the contract when the buyer and the seller negotiate the sales contract. Also there are a lot of considerations and limitations in using the LD Clause and the Guarantee Clause in their real business, mainly dependent up bargain power between the seller and the buyer, for which this author promise to examine in detail in the future.

In Mash & Murrell, Diplock J said that "there is an implied warranty not merely that they shall be merchantable at the time they are put on the vessel, but that they shall be in such a state that they can endure the normal journey and be in a merchantable condition upon arrival." But in The Mercini Lady, Field J said that "the goods would be of satisfactory quality not only when the goods were delivered on to the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter." and "The proposed conditions were not excluded by clause 18. ${\cdots}$ clause 18 was not to be construed as extending to conditions ${\cdots}$". In relation to the problems on validity of the goods conformity clauses in FOB contracts, when considering Lord Wright's comments ("${\cdots}$ hence apt and precise words must be used to exclude it: the words guarantee or warranty are not sufficiently clear.") in Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass, FOB contracts are fundamentally one that seller's duty to deliver the goods is completing at the port of shipment and "principle of party autonomy" in Contract Law, I do not think that the terms implied by section 14 of the SGA and Common Law cannot absolutely excluded by the goods conformity clauses in sale contracts. Therefore, in order to exclude the implied terms, the parties must very clearly spell out this in the relevant clauses.

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application. First, it is agreement that is the agreement of the parties controls. Second, the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller. Third, the delivery by common carrier other than by seller is necessary: Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations; If it is a destination contract, then risk of loss is on the seller; If it is a delivery contract, then the risk of loss is on the buyer. Fourth, if the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's receipt of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. This paper discusses problems of risk of loss under the American law. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of risk of loss issues for Korean law.

International commercial arbitration is a specially formed mechanism for the final and binding settlement of disputes arisen between contracting parties regarding procedures, structures or other contractual relationship agreed by them. It is a resolution system which is processed autonomously by arbitrators who are appointed by contracting parties without involving the national court. If the contracting parties want to settle their disputes by arbitration, there must be a valid agreement. With a valid agreement, the most important concern is which law(called as the substantive law) should be applied in order to determine the rights and obligations of both contracting parties in relation to the dispute. At this point, the substantive law is really important because it is applied to the dispute itself directly during proceedings as well as it plays an crucial role in scrutiny and enforcement of arbitral awards. This article discusses about the substantive law under international commercial arbitration, specially focusing on the regulations of the ICC rules of arbitration, which is the most widely used all over the world and UNCITRAL Model law, which most countries' rule and laws are based on. By discussing how these rules and regulations should be interpreted and applied, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners when they agree on an arbitration agreement.

The Rotterdam Rules provide that port terminal operator may avoid or limit their liability for cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery or breach of any other obligation under the Rules by invoking the provisions that may provide a defence for, or limit the liability of, the carrier. Consequently the port terminal operator who are involved in the provision of maritime services may avoid or limit their liability for cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery or breach of any other obligation under the Rules. The port terminal operator to be applied for the Himalaya clause under the Rules must show that it has the requisite link with a Contracting State. In addition, the port terminal operator performs service to the period of time between the arrival of the goods at the port of loading and their departure from the port of discharge. The port terminal operator's liability for breaches of its obligation is limited to 875 SDR per package or other shipping units, or 3 SDR per kilogram of the gross weight of the goods. In addition, compensation for delay shall be limited to an amount equivalent to two and one-half times the fright payable on the goods delayed.

This article introduces and briefly examines the Uniform Rules for Forfaiting (URF)(ICC Publication No. 800), which were prepared by a joint project of the Banking Commission of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Forfaiting Association (IFA), and became effective on January 1, 2013. Forfaiting is a kind of trade financing technic performed by way of a sale and purchase of payment claim between its seller and its buyer, the forfaiter, on a without recourse basis. URF is designed to facilitate global trade finance and embraces all the international payment instruments which are currently used and will be newly developed in the future. URF is expected to be a set of standardized terms and conditions for both the primary and secondary forfaiting markets. In this context, this article first looks into the concept of the forfaiting and certain features and structure of forfaiting transactions. Then this article moves to discussing URF itself. For this it examines (i) the nature and scope of URF and some important definitions provided in URF, (ii) some provisions of URF that apply to the delivery of documents to the forfaiter, the examination, and the acceptance or refusal, of such documents by the forfaiter, and (iii) the payment of purchase price by the forfaiter to its seller, including the matter of "payment under reserve" and repurchase by the seller from the forfaiter. Finally, this article examines liabilities of the parties concerned, before conclusion.

While a performance type guarantee is required as a security for non-performance risk by a seller, a payment guarantee is used as a security for non-payment risk by a buyer(or a borrower in a loan agreement). A payment guarantee is a type of independent bank guarantee, bank guarantee, bond, demand guarantee, or standby letter of credit. A guarantor accepts a credit risk of a principal which is normally a buyer in a contract for sale of goods. A payment guarantee is independent of the underlying relationship between the applicant and the beneficiary. The guarantor is only empowered to examine the beneficiary's demand and determine the payment on its face to the terms of the guarantee. A payment guarantee is thus different from a suretyship. The principle of independence carries a significant advantages for a guarantor as well as for a beneficiary. While a documentary credit requires B/L, commercial invoice, packing list, inspection certificate, etc., a typical payment guarantee does not require any evidence for a seller's performance of the underlying contract other than written demand. In this respect payment guarnatee can be a more secured facility than a documentary credit. A payment guarantee normally comes into force from the issuing date and shall remain in effect until all sums guaranteed shall be paid in full by a buyer(or a borrower) or by a guarantor. Although a guarantor shall pay a demand made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the payment guarantee, a payment demand may be denied when it is determined to be abusive or unfair.

It is quite true that the more Korean contractors receive overseas contracts, the more they need guarantees. The top market for them is the Middle East countries, consisting of more than the half of the total amount awarded last year and the trend is increasing as well. The problem, however, is that employers in these countries are reluctant to use international rules for guarantee such as URDG or ISP98 and easily make unfair callings. However, Korean contractors(applicants), especially small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs) tend to hurriedly enter a contract without looking into its contents as well as guarantees. They do not realize the importance of the guarantees until they receive callings from the employers(beneficiaries). Being independent from the underlying contracts, guarantee is the equivalent to cash in that it usually does not require any proof of demand when calling and the guarantor should make a payment within usually 5 business days after the request. It is often observed these days that several Korean SMEs go bankrupt due to liquidity risks after receiving unfair callings from employers in the Middle East countries. In retrospect, some cases could be obviated if contractors were a little more careful in checking the contents of a guarantee at the time of concluding a contract. For example, there is one case where the underlying contract includes a reduction clause in the Advance Payment bond and the guarantee does not have that clause. In the end, the Korean contractor had to take the whole burden of the bond amount though it had finished 81% of the project. Nobody could argue that contractors should take a full responsibility if they fail in their obligations. However, the employer's wrongful callings need to be prevented in the first place, if possible. As there shouldn't be a case where one party is at a disadvantage against the other like the case mentioned above, useful insight is being sought to minimize unfair calling risks for the benefit of the applicant. First, the applicant should carefully look into every detail of the potential guarantee before signing a contract, heeding especially that there is a reduction clause in the AP bond. Second, the governing principles for guarantee should be the ones that are internally used such as URDG758 that is objective in terms of callings given that, for example, it specifies that the requirement for a supporting statement when making a demand is a default rule. It is also recommended that the form of guarantees be the standard demand guarantee. Third, parties involved in issuing guarantees are advised to understand international rules for guarantee like URDG758 and ISP98 and to play a key role in guiding SME contractors in Korea so that they can protect themselves from possible wrongful callings, particularly from employers in the Middle East countries. I hope this study would give a wake-up call for Korean SMEs wishing to do business in the Middle East countries and remind them of the importance of guarantee itself and its governing principles.

Traditionally, a L/C (letter of credit) has been known as a relatively low risk method of payment. This is why L/C has been used in international trade. However, L/C has a number of weak points such as high cost, long processing time, and complicated documents. Using an electronic L/C is one way to solve those weak points. In Korea, there are two types of electronic L/C. One is the EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) based L/C and the other one is the XML (Extensible Markup Language) based L/C. The former, established in 1990's, is sent from banks to the beneficiary solely through VAN (Value Added Network, KTNET) operators. On the other hand the latter, started in 2005, is sent from banks to KFTC (Korea Financial Telecommunications & Clearings Institute) for management of the L/C balance, as well as to KTNET. So far, paper L/C and EDI based L/C have been used overwhelmingly instead of XML based L/C in spite of the aforesaid disadvantages. In this paper, the authors examined empirically why the users of electronic L/C were reluctant to use XML based L/C. The results are as follows. First, the users of paper L/C were more dissatisfied than the users of electronic L/C due to many factors such as cost, the time required, and information reuse. Second, the users who have more experience with XML based L/C wanted to adopt integrated management with EDI based L/C more than the users who had not experienced XML based L/C. Third, the users who had used more than one form of L/C wanted to adopt integrated management to EDI and XML based L/C more than the users who had only used one form of L/C. Therefore, the authority for electronic L/C should consider a change of the policy from the XML based electronic L/C oriented to integrated management of the various types of L/C.

Origin verification is regarded most essential for FTA performance administration. This administration is divided into direct and indirect system where Korea has adapted indirect system to Korea-EU FTA while direct system to Korea-USA FTA. A comparative analysis was conducted on the system of origin verification and provisions contained in preferential tariff law of each countries. The study finds that Korean origin verification system is a bit lack of procedural provision resulting in less protection of domestic trader's rights. Another point is that Korean Customs Authority is weak, in respect of organization and man power, to protect illegal bilateral tariff application by counter part FTA countries. And therefore this study suggests the policy makers to arrange detailed FTA origin verification procedures with earliest meeting with counter part FTA countries, and further stress that make up of organization and man power for origin verification in a timely manner.

In this study, the scope of previous logistics security were focused only on port and ship. Because of it now extends to the overall (export and import) supply chain areas and in regards with supply security programs in the international level, it reviewed supply chain security programs categorized them into 'ships and port security system', 'container screening system', 'logistics chain authorization system' which are expanded to be adopted in the international level. The major features of those programs are summarized as in building risk management system, providing information ahead, selectivity test and benefits to AEO authorized companies in the customs administration level. The government and companies which are to ensure supply chain security and trade facilitation in order to cope actively with international customs administrative atmosphere need to do the followings : First, they need to build an intra-government integrated supply chain security and make efforts to conclude AEO MRA in order to increase trade competitiveness among major trading countries. Second, they need to build supply chain risk management system in order to enhance management performance through overseas market and company level strategy to obtain and maintain AEO authorization in the company level.

Today FTA extends over the world and Korea as a main member of international trade is no exception. In the past Korea, as the developing countries, has made endlessly effort to induce foreign investment from foreign enterprise and/or government to be a truly OECD countries today and made it. Korea's trade economy was reached 1 trillion dollars in 2012. Now we have to find a new way to produce, process, procure goods from foreign investment and also need to protect our profit and/or rights within foreign judicial territory. There are two method to protect foreign enterprise or government. First they rely on general principles in WTO or Bilateral Investment Treaty that the principle of equality, national treatment, and most-favored-nation treatment, you can create a predictable environment to protect foreign enterprise and/or government. Second they need to incorporate contractual clauses in their agreement such as stabilization clause, force majeure, arbitration, governing law or sovereign immunity. Of course there are many things left behind to consider I hope it will be helpful to those who prepare foreign investment contract.

Since the Kyoto Protocol was released in 2005, there has been a number of mechanisms about funding and how to allocate the burdens. The UNFCCC(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)have discussed establishing an international fund to support the reduction of a greenhouse gas. As the availability of adaption finance for developing countries increase, it's needed for a way of prioritizing countries. This article analyzes the carbon reduction system that includes a emission trading scheme, a carbon tax and examines GCF(Green Climate Fund)'s role and needs. A solution to finance Green Climate Fund is more preferred a harmonized carbon tax that across all nations with carbon tax. Especially the role of industrialized countries is important that based on their historical responsibility for fossil fuel emission. That is, they should get more shares of the global costs than developing countries.