• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.201-216
• /
• 2018

After the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union's Common Commercial Policy now belongs to the exclusive competence area of the EU, including the foreign direct investment (FDI) policy. Regarding the bilateral investment protection treaties (BITs) between the EU Member States, the European Commission is of the view that such BITs should be discarded. On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in the Achmea BV v. Slovakia case that a BIT between the EU Member States, as well as arbitral awards based on that BIT, is not subject to request for preliminary rulings under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and thus they are not compatible with the EU law. However, the judgment did not silence the controversy. Instead, many people questioned the legal reasoning and the legitimacy of judgment, and therefore the problem is still ongoing.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.59-83
• /
• 2014

In the past, the mention of "international arbitration" would have brought to mind only commercial arbitration. However, the frequency of investment treaty arbitration has seen remarkable grow thanks to the rise of globalization and the spread of multi-national corporations. Reflecting on the current state of the world, this paper introduces the meaning, characteristics, and differences between commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration in the context of procedural considerations. To this end, this paper examines some major procedural differences among the said types of arbitration, by dividing commercial arbitration into institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration, and dividing investment treaty arbitration into ICSID arbitration and UNCITRAL Rules arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.157-183
• /
• 2011

본 연구는 한국의 다국적 기업이 세계 여러 지역(유럽, 아프리카, 아시아, 아메리카)에서 글로벌 경제 활동과 사업을 범세계적으로 수행하고 있으며. 범세계적인 글로벌 사업수행에서 지역별 경제변화가 지역적으로 다양하면서, 복잡하게 전개되는 것에 대해서 글로벌기업이 지역별 특성에 적합하게 사업을 영위하면서 글로벌하게 현지시장 접근 방법을 어떠한 기준으로 우선 접근하는지에 대한 방법을 통계처리를 하였으며 향후 어떠한 방법을 수용하여 전략적 방법과 모델을 개발하여 자연스럽게 글로벌화 추이를 알아보고자 연구과제들을 실증 분석 하였음. 그리고 글로벌화 하는 TNC's 기업의 지식과 정보의 습득이 중요하며, 변화와 혁신을 통해서 자신의 분야에서는 세계적 선도 기업이 되고자 하는 TNC's 기업이라면 선진국 TNCs 기업보다는 더 적극적인 전략과 사업 모델을 모색해야 한다는 전제하에 실증모형을 설정하고 연구과제들을 정리하였음. 1. TNC's에 의하여 세계경제 활동에 중요한 변수들을 여러 가지 측면에서 검토하고 지리적요인과 경제적 요소들을 고려하여 기술과 자원의 아웃소싱의 글로벌화 방법을 고려하여 세계경제체제의 변화와 향상에 많은 투자내용들이 지리적인 여건과 글로벌화를 고려하여 투자가 진행되어지는가의 추이를 분석하였음. 2. TNC's의 역량에 따라 사업경영에서 현지국가의 경영관리와 산업의 변화에 까지 영향을 주었고 향후에도 글로벌화 경제의 발달과 향상에 협력하는 기업, 자국의 경제 발달과 향상에 협력하는 기업에까지 긍정적인 협조가 이루어지는 투자형태의 글로벌화 지수의 내용을 실증분석 하였음.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제4권1호
• /
• pp.129-142
• /
• 1994

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.447-469
• /
• 1997

• 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
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2021

Recent Discussions on Third-Party Funding (TPF) in the forums of UNCITRAL, ICSID, and ICC are making different levels of progress towards finalizing the rules. However, they also have similarities in dealing with legal issues related to TPF, such as definitions, disclosure, allocation of costs, and security for costs. International treaty tribunals have dealt with TPF issues, too. When it comes to the standing of funded claimants, the tribunal in Ambiente v. Argentina did not accept the argument that claimants were controlled by the TPF provider. Concerning the scope of the disclosure, the tribunal in Tennant v. Canada ordered the disclosure of the TPF arrangement. As for the allocation of costs, the tribunal in Kardassopoulos v. Georgia noted that there is no reason why a TPF agreement should be treated differently than an insurance contract. Regarding the security for costs, the tribunal in South American Silver v. Bolivia considered the mere existence of a third-party funder as not an exclusive factor to determine costs in the earlier stage of the proceedings. Lastly, relating to TPF as a ground for annulment, the tribunal in Teinver v. Argentina declined the respondent's argument that the TPF agreement was the vehicle of fraud.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.3-34
• /
• 2019

The resumption of economic cooperation between South and the North Korea will be a new growth engine for our economy. Many Korean companies are preparing to invest in North Korea in accordance with the progress of inter-Korean relations. However, there are many risks inherent in inter-Korean economic cooperation, as experienced in previous cases. Specifically, one should be prepared for unfair measures such as the expropriation of investment assets of South Korean enterprises by North Korea authorities. Therefore, it is essential to review the protection measures of investment in North Korea and to review the investment dispute settlement system. The South and the North have an agreement to establish the inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee to resolve the disputes that may arise if one party's investments are lost due to inappropriate or unfair measures due to the other party's authority. However, the Investment Agreement, which governs the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee, contains a number of declarative statements that are somewhat ineffective. Even today, nearly 20 years after the adoption of the Agreement, the specific detailed procedures have shown no real progress, such as in the enactment of arbitration rules. Therefore, at present, it is difficult to expect a system that can effectively address the damage of our corporations which have invested in North Korea. When the assets freeze after the suspension of Kumgang tourism and the closure of the Kaeseung Industrial Complex by North Korea, the activation of the inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee is the most important prerequisite for economic cooperation with North Korea. For this purpose, the resolution of disputes through the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee has to be made more concrete, with the effectiveness of the dispute settlement system enhanced by means of various efforts.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2023

The investment agreement prepared at the beginning of inter-Korean economic cooperation in 2000 can be evaluated as very ineffective as a product of mutual political and diplomatic compromise rather than an effective protection for our investment assets. South Korean companies suffered a lot of losses due to the freezing of assets in the Geumgang mountain district and the closure of the Kaeseung Industrial Complex, but they did not receive practical damage relief due to institutional vulnerabilities. Currently, North Korea is under international economic sanctions of the UN Security Council, so it is true that the resumption of inter-Korean economic cooperation is far away, but North Korea's human resources and geographical location are still attractive investment destinations for us. Therefore, if strained relations between the two Koreas recover in the future and international economic sanctions on North Korea are eased, Korean companies' investment in North Korea will resume. However, the previous inter-Korean investment agreement system was a fictional systemthat was ineffective. Therefore, if these safety devices are not reorganized when economic cooperation resumes, unfair damage to Korean companies will be repeated again. The core of the improved investment guarantee system is not a bilateral system between the two Koreas, but the establishment of a multilateral system through North Korea's inclusion in the international economy. Specifically, it includes encouraging North Korea to join international agreements for the execution of arbitration decisions, securing subrogation rights through membership of international insurance groups such as MIGA, creating matching funds by international financial organizations. Through this new approach, it will be possible to improve the safety of Korean companies' investment in North Korea, and ultimately, it will be necessary to lay the foundation for mutual development through economic cooperation between the two Koreas.