• 환경영향평가
• /
• 제21권4호
• /
• pp.525-541
• /
• 2012

This study aims to investigate the possibility of Investor-State Dispute under Korea US FTA in relation to Korean environmental impact assessment scheme. The study analyzes the Investor-State Dispute case between Bilcon of Delaware and the government of Canada. The case study shows that Bilcon challenged Canada with violations of NAFTA 1102, 1103 and 1105, arguing that Canada treated Bilcon in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The study analyzes two different scenarios that Korea could face with arbitration for alleged breach of its obligations under the Korea US FTA in relation to EIA scheme. From analyzing the case study in relation to two different scenarios, the study finds that problems previously identified and associated with EIA scheme in Korea could directly or indirectly cause Investor-State Dispute Settlement process between Korea and American investors. The study concludes that the risk of violating Korea US FTA related with Korean EIA could be reduced by creating Korean EIA scheme in a transparent and unarbitrary manner which guarantees fair public participation and elaborating the concrete meaning of sustainable development in EIA law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.55-79
• /
• 2013

As arbitration becomes an increasingly popular mode of resolving disputes, neighboring industries begin to take notice. This interest is reflected in the increasing utilization of third party funding in international arbitration claims. In this regard, the third party funding industry appears particularly interested in investor-state arbitration claims because they typically involve considerable claim amounts and substantial legal fees. To examine this trend more closely, this paper, firstly, examines the investor-state arbitration more precisely in Chapter II. In Chapter III, this study continues to examine some legal issues which can arise as a result of a conflict of interest between the parties to the funding agreement including, inter alia, 1) a dispute in which the funder terminates the agreement during the arbitration proceedings, 2) a dispute in relation to a funder's intervention in arbitration proceedings, and 3) a dispute on the responsibility for adverse costs orders, if any. This paper further identifies major legal issues which can arise in relation to 1) disclosure of existence of the funding agreement, 2) attorney-client privilege. Lastly, in Chapter IV, this paper provides some lessons from an in-depth case study on third party funding agreements and solutions to avoid and to solve prospective disputes in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

This article examines the Challenge through Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards. Either party may request annulment of the award by applying in writing addressed to the ICSID Secretary-General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The annulment proceedings must focus on the award itself. Because committees have no inherent supremacy over the arbitral tribunal, they should not review the tribunal's findings on evidence, damage, interest, and cost findings. Otherwise, the parties would have, in effect, two opportunities, and that will almost certainly weaken the reliability of the entire ICSID system. In short, because of the limited scope of review under ICSID annulment and because annulment is not an opportunity for the parties to re-try the case, committees should not allow new arguments or new evidence. Since an annulment committee is not a court of appeals, it cannot create a new res judicata. Committees can only decide not to annul an award, thus confirming the existing res judicata or annul the award, in which case the affected decision ceases to be res judicata. An obvious annulment decision stipulating which particular findings of the award remain res judicata should prevent any uncertainty in resubmission proceedings.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• pp.23-49
• /
• 2023

An ICSID award on Lone Star case has been rendered finally on August 31st, 2022 after almost ten years since the Lone Star Funds submitted the request for arbitration against the Republic of Korea in 2012. The Lone Star case is the first investor-state dispute settlement(ISDS) case brought against Korea, and this case, also known as "eat and run" case, has given rise to heated debates for years. Moreover, as the ICSID tribunal has ordered Korea to pay the Lone Star Funds the sum of USD 216.5 million plus interest in the award, this case has become once again the subject of controversy. Any arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in dispute have not been disclosed until recently, however, as the memorials and the award are now open to the public, it has become possible to realize the assertions of each party and the decisions of the tribunal in detail. Therefore, this paper aims at analyzing the main issues of the Lone Star case with a focus on the ICSID award. By examining the substantive and procedural issues of the case one after the other, it might be able to understand the whole picture of the case and prepare for the remaining procedures of this case and other upcoming cases as well.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제13권12호
• /
• pp.702-714
• /
• 2013

한중일은 새로운 경제성장을 위한 고민과 더불어 외자를 유치함에 있어 새로운 도전과 어려움에 직면해 있다. 향후 한중일 FTA는 3국간의 투자를 더욱 촉진 할 것으로 기대되고 있다. 이 논문은 한중일 3국간의 투자에 관한 법적체계와 제약요소 및 투자규칙에 관한 연구를 하였다. 3국간의 무역경제 관계와 투자흐름을 검토하고, 이를 배경으로 3국의 외국투자에 관한 법적체계 및 투자규칙에 관한 검토를 통하여 상대국에 있어서 투자에 관한 주요한 제약이 무엇인지, 향후 한중일 FTA는 3국간의 투자를 더욱 촉진하기 위해서는 한중일 FTA 투자 장(章)에 포함해야 할 것이 무엇인지를 제시하고자 하였다. 한중일 FTA는 3방향의 투자 흐름을 원활화하고 3국간에 투자자와 투자보호를 강화하기위한 효과적인 수단이 될 것이다. 이 점에서 향후 한중일 FTA 투자 장은 내국민 대우, 최혜국대우, 특정조치의 이행요구의 금지 및 경영진이나 이사회의 국적 요건, 자금의 이전, 세이프가드 조치, 수용 및 보상, 손실에 대한 보상, 공정 형평 대우, 투자자 대 국가의 분쟁 해결 및 3국 간 합의 된 다른 요소를 포함해야한다.

• 아태비즈니스연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.117-133
• /
• 2019

This paper examines the most-favored-nation treatment clause on the BITs concluded by China and examines the attitudes of China on the application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs by period as the scope of arbitration increases. Moreover, this study pointed out the problems that would be exposed if the most-favored-nation treatment clause applies to ISDs and then also suggested solutions. The conclusions of this study are as follows; if the Chinese government strictly restricts the applicable expansion of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the dispute settlement procedure by considering only the position of the capital importing country, it implies a contradiction against the development trend of the arbitration system related to international investment disputes. Of course, in order to protect the rights of Chinese investors investing abroad, expanding the applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs procedure unconditionally may have a negative impact under China's dual status of being a capital-importing country and a capital-exporting country. Therefore, China should clearly define the scope of application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause, the completion of the local remedy for the host country in cases of BIT to be concluded in the future or amended, and also clearly define that the most-favored-nation treatment clause should not be retroactively applied into BITs already concluded as an exception of applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.