• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• pp.61-78
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to clarify the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Although most international investment treaties prescribe fair and equitable treatment that is the obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment to foreign investor, there is no clear definition and specific elements of fair and equitable treatment. Through the arbitral award cases we can find that tribunals have interpreted to include six principles; Due process & Protection from denial of justice, Good faith, Reasonableness & Nondiscrimination, Compliance with contractual obligation, Full protection and security, Transparency & Protection of the investor's legitimate expectations. This study suggest that host countries and investors focus on international trends concerning investment disputes in order to avoid future disputes. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.187-213
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this article is to examine Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements. Most BITs and other investment treaties provide for FET of foreign investments. Today, this concept is the most frequently invoked standard in investment disputes. It is also the standard with the highest practical relevance: a majority of successful claims pursued in international arbitration are based on a violation of the FET standard. The concept of FET is not new but has appeared in international documents for some time. Some of these documents were nonbinding others entered into force as multilateral or bilateral treaties. Considerable debate has surrounded the question of whether the FET standard merely reflects the internationalminimum standard, as contained in customary international law, or offers an autonomous standard that is additional to general international law. As a matter of textual interpretation, it seems implausible that a treaty would refer to a well-known concept like the "minimum standard of treatment in customary international law" by using the expression "fair and equitable treatment." Broad definitions or descriptions are not the only way to gauge the meaning of an elusive concept such as FET. Another method is to identify typical factual situations to which this principle has been applied. An examination of the practice of tribunals demonstrates that several principles can be identified that are embraced by the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Some of the cases discussed clearly speak to the central roles of transparency, stability, and the investor's legitimate expectations in the current understanding of the FET standard. Other contexts in which the standard has been applied concern compliance with contractual obligations, procedural propriety and due process, action in good faith, and freedom from coercion and harassment. In short, meeting the investor's central legitimate concern of legal consistency, stability, and predictability remains a major, but not the only, ingredient of an investment-friendly climate in which the host state in turn can reasonably expect to attract foreign investment.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.195-216
• /
• 2016

In determining the content of the FET standard, the tribunals stated protection of investor's legitimate expectations, due process and denial of justice, transparency, discrimination and arbitrariness, good faith, etc. The most major elements of the FET standard is the protection of the investor's legitimate and reasonable expectations. It is necessary to consider whether it is possible to what the expectations of investors are protected as legitimate and it is formed under any circumstances. If host state frustrate investor's legitimate expectations, it found a breach of the FET. The host state's specific assurance may reinforce investor's expectations, but such explicit statement is not always necessary. The host state must preserve a stable environment for investments. However, It must not be understood as the inalterability of the host state's legal framework. It implies that the host state's subsequent changes should be made consistently and predictably. The host state is entitled to exercise a reasonable regulatory authority to respond to changing circumstances in the public purpose. Therefore, whether the violation FET shall be determined through a balanced against the investor's legitimate expectations and the host state's reasonable regulatory exercise in the public interest. And investor should keep in mind that the principle of proportionality is applied unless host state provides stabilization clause or similar commitments to investor. Also host state should establish the basis of an argument about reasonable regulatory authority for public interest.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.103-124
• /
• 2012

Because the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea-U.S. FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have an overlapping contracting party, the United States, their provisions have much in common. The investment chapters of these agreements, especially, show many similarities, and thanks to these similarities, it is likely that the Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration tribunal for investor-state disputes regarding the environment will put great weight on the NAFTA tribunals' interpretations of those similar provisions. Since the NAFTA tribunals have already handled many environment-related arbitration cases, their interpretations will help heighten the predictability of environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration cases. This paper analyzes the environment-related NAFTA cases in which the tribunal has issued an award, which are the Metalclad case, S.D. Myers case, Waste Management case, Methanex case, Glamis Gold case, and Chemtura case. According to this analysis, the most controversial NAFTA provisions have been Article 1102 (national treatment), Article 1105 (minimum treatment standard, fair and equitable treatment), and Article 1110 (expropriation). The NAFTA tribunals applied the requirement of these articles in a strict manner, reducing the possibility of finding a violation. After the aforementioned analysis, this paper proceeds to compare the national treatment, minimum treatment standard (fair and equitable treatment), and expropriation provisions of the Korea-U.S. FTA and NAFTA and to predict the impact that the environment-related awards under NAFTA can have on environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA cases. It is expected that the NAFTA interpretations of the national treatment and minimum treatment provisions are likely be used as they are, but not the interpretations of expropriation, because of the differences in the expropriation provisions of the two agreements.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2009

South Korea has investment agreements such as FTAs, BITs with several countries. Up to now, no single case has been registered against the Korean government on breach of investment agreements, but it is likely that the number of such cases would increase. Therefore, an investor-state dispute settlement system, an arbitral procedure by which a foreign investor may seek compensation of damage against the host country, is gaining its importance. The provision of the ISDS has been one of the hottest issues in Korea while the Kor-US FTA was being signed. In this respect, with the growing number of regional agreements such as BITs and FTAs, a careful scrutiny on the ISDS is necessary for Korea. I have therefore studied theoretically subjects including the National Treatment(NT), the Most-Favored Nation(MFN), Fair and Equitable Treatment and Expropriation - those that have been the objects of protection on investors. And I have analyzed ICSID arbitral awards and provided implications. In the ICSID arbitral awards, the Fair and Equitable Treatment turned out to be the most recognized violation on investors by the host State in terms of investor protection. On the other hand, Indirect Expropriation - a matter of which public anxiety was shown led by civic groups - was not generally recognized in arbitral awards. This study is written for sake of governments, local autonomous entities and public enterprises that are in charge of FTAs and BITs.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

기후변화문제는 이미 글로벌 이슈로 부상한 지 오래이지만, 기후변화문제를 각국의 정책으로 이식시키는데 필요한 국제투자법상의 적합한 기준들은 아직 마련되어 있지 않은 실정이다. 최근 ICSID중재에 회부된 Vattenfall v. Germany 사례는 독일 정부의 원전폐쇄 조치에 대한 기후변화 관련 국제투자분쟁의 대표적 사례라고 할 수 있다. 2005년 발효된 교토의정서는 환경오염의 주범인 온실가스를 감소시키는 방안으로 공동이행체제와 청정개발시스템 등의 유연한 메카니즘들을 제안하였다. 교토의정서의 이러한 교토메카니즘들은 이행규칙상, 사적 영역의 투자자들이 각국이 이행하는 교토메카니즘의 규제아래 놓일 수도 있게 함으로써 잠재적으로 투자분쟁의 위험을 지니고 있다고 할 수 있다. 각 국가가 교토메카니즘을 잘 이행하기 위한 배출기준의 더욱 엄격한 규제 등을 한다면 온실가스 감축이라는 글로벌 명제와 상관없이, 정부의 기후변화 조치들조차 수용의 금지라고 하는 국제투자중재의 투자자 보호 원칙들의 잣대 하에 놓일 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 것이다. 수 용의 문제에 있어 이제까지 대부분의 국제투자중재 판정에서 내려진 '침해의 결과(effect-based)'만을 기준으로 적용한다면, 각국 정부들의 배출기준 조정에 대해 투자자들이 자신들의 투자를 유치국 정부가 수용했다고 볼 수 있는 가능성이 생긴다. 투자중재 회부의 두려움으로 인한 각국 정부의 '규제적 위축(regulatory chill)'의 문제도 세계 각국이 기후 변화정책을 강화하는 것을 방해하는 역할을 할 수 있다. 투자 계약상 투자자를 보호하기 위한 정부조치의 '정지조항(stablization clause)'도 투자 유치국의 기후변화 이행과 새로운 입법에 된서리 효과를 가지고 올 것이다. 그리고 현재까지의 투자중재 판정부의 공정하고 공평한 대우 기준(FET)의 적용을 본다면, 교토메카니즘 이전에 탄소 집약적 산업들이 저탄소 운영체제로 가기 위해 투자유치국에 진입할 때, 투자유치국이 적절한 이행을 하는데에 상당한 부담을 줄 수도 있다. 그러므로 Methanex 사건 판정부에서처럼, 수용에 있어서 침해결과만을 볼 것이 아니라, 정부의 규제결정이 의도적으로 외국인 투자자의 투자를 침해할 목적이 아니고 비차별적이며 공공적인 목적이라면 수용의 범주에 포함시키지 않도록 하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 또한 환경법상의 지속가능한 발전의 원칙을 투자조약이나 투자계약에 포함하도록 하는 것을 고려해 볼 수 있다. 덧붙여 이후부터 정부가 투자자-국가 중재 회부 가능성이라는 부담을 벗어나서 환경규제를 이행하기 위해서는 투자자-국가 중재이외의 다른 적절한 분쟁해결 조항을 입안하여 합의하는 것도 고려해 볼만 하다.