• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

Whether an investor can invoke a dispute settlement procedure stipulated in other BIT based on the MFN clause in the original BIT is an important issue. There is a difference in the interpretation of MFN clause in which the scope of the treatment stipulates the slightly different contents for each investment treaty. Therefore, this study considered ICSID arbitration cases related to the applicability of MFN clause for investment dispute settlement provisions. There are two different approaches for the applicability of MFN clause by arbitral tribunals. At first, the expanded interpretation of the MFN clause can be applied to procedural regulations, in that the purpose of the investment treaty is to protect foreign investors and to ensure their status. So, foreign investors can invoke a BIT of a third country that is advantageous to them. Second, the limited interpretation of the MFN clause can not be applied to procedural regulations. Without explicit regulation, the term treatment can not be considered to include dispute resolution provisions. And the BIT that the host state has concluded with third country is a treaty that applies only to the contracting party, so it can not be used by foreign investors of other nationality. Therefore, this study suggests concretely stipulating the scope of MFN clause under the investment treaty, highlighting that certain restrictions should be applied to the MFN clause. Furthermore, it is required continually investigating and analyzing the database of the scope of MFN clause.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• 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.

• 정보화사회
• /
• s.121
• /
• pp.57-61
• /
• 1998

서비스에 대한 국제무역이 상당히 활발하다. 이것은 세계경제 자체가 옛날의 산업사회에서 고도산업사회로 넘어가고, 외국인 투자가 활발하게 이루어지고 있기 때문에 서비스에 관한 국가간의 거래에 대한 룰을 만들어서 물에 따라서 국제계획이 활발하게 되고 분쟁이 있는 경우에 일방적으로 한 국가가 독점하지 않고, 모든 국가가 의뢰할 수 있는 분쟁해결장치를 만들자는 의도를 가지고 시작된 것이 우루과이라운드 협상이었고, 그 가운데 서비스 협정이 만들어진 것이다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2013

The interpretation and application of investment treaties takes place mostly by ad hoc tribunals. Their composition varies from case to case. But in interpreting and applying investment treaties are bound to exist on a ground rule and coherent criteria. Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. When interpreting investment treaties, (i) most tribunals is based on Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, (ii) tribunals rely on previous decisions, (iii) tribunals resort to travaux pr$\acute{e}$paratoires, (iv) tribunals consider the interpretative statement. When applying investment treaties, (i) treaties apply only in relation to acts or events that occurred after their entry into force, (ii) tribunals have applied different inter-temporal rules to jurisdictional clauses and substantive provisions in treaties, (iii) the relevant date for purposes of jurisdiction is the date of the institution of proceedings, (iv) Under the ICSID convention, the host state and investor's nationality must be a party to the convention on the date the proceedings are instituted. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in the interpretation and application standards of investment treaties. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2000

지적재산권은 기술개발의욕 자극을 위해 새로이 물건이나 사상 등의 창작자에게 일종의 배타적 독점권을 부여한 것으로서 1980년대 이후 국제적 관심이 고조되기 시작하였는데, 두 차례의 석유파동 이후 기술이 국제 경쟁력의 주요 결정요인으로 등장하던 시기에 한국을 비롯한 개도국들이 선진국의 기술을 모방하여 첨단기술제품 분야에서 경쟁적 우위를 확보하자 자신들의 경쟁력 확보를 위해 선진국들이 자신들의 통상교섭력을 바탕으로 GATT/UR 등 국제적 협상을 통해 지적재산권 보호문제를 통상문제로 확대시킨 것이다. 이러한 지적재산권에 대한 통상문제와 관련하여 가장 문제가 되는 국가는 역시 미국인데, 미국은 통상법 301조 중 지적재산권 보호에 적용되는 Special 301조를 이용하여 지적재산권 보호에 대한 실효성을 확보하였으며, 당초 제품수입상의 불공정거래행위에 적용하던 관세법 337조를 지적재산권을 침해하는 수입 판매행위에도 적용할 수 있도록 개정함으로써 그 보호수단을 더욱 강화하였는데, 이에 따라 우리도 적절한 대응방안의 모색이 요구되고 있다. 우선 정부의 입장에서는 대내적으로 원천기술 및 개량기술 개발을 통한 기술의 해외의존도 축소, 인센티브 도입 등 직무발명제도 활성화, 해외특허권 취득확대를 위한 중소기업의 해외출원비용 지원, 심사관의 전문화롤 통한 심사의 처리속도 및 질 향상, 특허기술정보 이용체제 개선을 위한 특허청의 정보전산화 및 산업기술정보원 톡허정보센타와의 유기적인 협조체제 구축, 기업의 특허분쟁대응능력 향상을 위한 전담부서 마련 및 국제특허분쟁 전문변리사 양성 등의 대안을 마련할 필요가 있으며, 대외적으로는 PLT협약 등 차후에 있을 국제협약에의 적극적인 참여를 통한 우리나라의 이익도모, 남북 가교역할의 강화 및 한 미 양국간의 법제적 차이에 대한 오해불식, 해당 산업에 영향을 줄 수 있는 로비 활동의 활성화 등의 대안이 필요하다. 또한 기업의 입장에서는 사전적으로 과감한 연구개발투자를 통한 산업재산권 확보, 기술 법률 언어능력을 고루 갖춘 특허전문가의 확보, 국제특허분쟁에 대한 대응체계 구축, 특허권 분쟁발생 방지를 위한 책임소재의 명확화 등의 근본적인 대책과 국제특허분쟁 차단을 위한 철저한 선행기술 조사, 해외기술의 개량 및 이용 촉진을 위한 크로스-라이센스의 활성화, 부실특허권에 대한 적극적인 무효심판청구, 제소정보에 대한 조기 입수, 설계변경이나 특허무효자료조사 등 침해회피 방법의 준비, 위험특허에 대한 철저한 예비조사 등의 부수적인 대책을 마련할 필요가 있으며, 일단 특허분쟁이 발생한 경우에는 당해 분쟁의 자사 생산 제품과의 관련여부 검토, 사건에 필요한 광범위한 정보 수집을 위한 전담팀 구성, 제소인의 특허권에 대한 면밀한 법률적 검토, 제소자에 대한 정확한 정보파악 및 최종 대응방안에 대한 신속한 결정, 자사의 특허를 이용한 제소자에 대한 역제소 등의 대응방안을 강구할 필요가 있는 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.217-234
• /
• 2007

동북아시아 국가들은 세계 무역 및 투자에 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있다. 동북아시아 역내 및 역외 국가들과의 경제교류는 앞으로 계속 늘어날 것으로 전망되며, 이로 인한 국제상사분쟁은 국제상사중재 등 ADR에 의해 해결될 수밖에 없을 것이다. 동북아시아에서 ADR 제도가 발전되기 위해서는 무엇보다도 한국의 대한상사중재원, 북한의 조선국제무역중재위원회, 중국의 중국국제경재무역중재위원회, 일본의 일본상사중재협회, 러시아의 러시아상공회의소 부설 국제상사중재법정, 카자흐스탄의 카자흐스탄국제중재기관, 몽골국가중재법정 상호간의 중재 업무 전반에 관한 협력제제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 국제상사중재에 관하여 동북아시아에 새로운 바람이 불고 있다. 경제자유구역 및 남북간 경제교류와 관련한 상사분쟁이 상사중재로 해결될 수 있는 법, 제도적 기반이 마련되었기 때문이다. 지난 해 한국에서는 대한상사중재원 주도하에 무역클레임 센서스가 실시되고 국제중재세미나가 개최되었으며 국제중재규칙이 제정(2007년도 2월 1일 시행 예정)된바 있다. 동북아시아 지역에서 국제상사중재제도가 발전되고 저변이 확대되기 위해서는 중재기관들 간의 협조체제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 한편 한국도 동북아시아의 중재허브로 성장하기 위해서는 국제금융, M&A 등 중재 영역을 확대하고 경제자유구역 및 남북상사중재 등과 같은 새로운 영역에 대처를 잘 해야 할 것이다. 아울러 정부 당국의 재정적 지원과 행정적 배려도 수반되어야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor's alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor's investment.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 2015

Central Asian Countries had been independent in 1991 from USSR. Since then it have been increasing foreign trade and investment amount with outside countries including China, Japan, EU and South Korea. Korean enterprises and entities have endeavored to secure plentiful natural resources, oil and gas energy and expand the market share to exporting the consuming and industrial competitive goods and services for those countries. In the case of disputes of commercial transactions and investment, arbitration is regarded as a dispute resolution system which has been preferred in international transactions and investments by the business world. Since the collapse of the USSR, Central Asian Countries have worked to modernize its arbitration law and procedure to conform with international standard rules. Arbitral legislation in Central Asian countries is based on the Model Law as adopted in 1985. However, CIS's legislation systems of arbitration are not satisfied with the international standard in national laws and practices. That is the reason to consider for the specific parliament about arbitration for the dispute resolutions in the commercial transaction and investment between Korean enterprises and CIS. In this article, it is discuss problems and its alternatives in the dispute resolution about the commercial transaction and investment into Central Asian countries including the tendency to the increasing the trade volumes of goods and investment between South Korea and CIS. According to this article, South Korea consider the long term strategy followed the preferred economic relative partnership for business success on commercial transaction and investment with the Central Asian Countries.

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.832-847
• /
• 2014

The main aim of this paper is to contribute to building some strategic foundations for future Korean foreign investors in Cambodia by investigating trends and institutional changes in inward foreign direct investment and working conditions in Cambodia. Rapid increase in labor costs, and investment incentives centering on high-tech industries in China and Vietnam has led to the relocation of labor-intensive industries into low wage countries since the early 2000. As a result, Cambodia has emerged as a new alternative investment region in which enable to off-set existing locational and institutional advantages, so that it has implicated in changes in Asian economic geographies. In addition, the Cambodian government has operated two labor relations projects - Better Factory Cambodia and Labor Dispute Resolution Project - with ILO to improve the working conditions of foreign investment firms. These projects could provide an insight into constructing strategies for foreign investment, and also imply institutional embeddedness in Cambodia.