• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.127-147
• /
• 2013

Korea is, after China, the Asian country with the largest number of concluded investment treaties. One of the protections that Korean investment treaties frequently afford to foreign investors and their investment is the so-called "umbrella clause," which requires the host state of the investment to observe the commitments that it has undertaken toward the foreign investor or its investment. This is a potentially very powerful protection. Umbrella clauses, however, have proven to be amongst the most controversial provisions in investment treaties, giving rise to diverging interpretations by tribunals and commentators that are still not reconciled today.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2009

Nowadays, Alternative Dispute Resolution in terms of reconciliation, arbitration, and mediation is in the spotlight as a try to overcome the limits of a lawsuit as well as the judicial reform. Since many articles have studied ADR in America, Germany, Japan and the like which developed the system in advance, this article compares ADR in major Asian countries including China, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, India, and Vietnam etc. introducing ADR organizations as well. On the matter of vigorous trade and investment between Asian countries currently, it seems inevitable not to have consequential disputes through international exchange. Thus it will be very useful to know the law to resolve the conflict between the countries involved. This article is written to help to resolve the disputes in Asian countries and provide research materials to develop ADR in Korea by comparing the ones in major Asian countries. In addition, the comparative study of ADR in Asian countries should be continued to find the model which best fits in Asia as well as to nurture talent.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.141-141
• /
• 2017

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.123-156
• /
• 2004

Settlement of investment disputes is quite different from that of commercial disputes arising from ordinary commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc.. Therefore, it is very important to consider the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States(Washington Convention) of 1965. The creation of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID), which was established under the Washington Convention, was the belief that an institution specially designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between governments and foreign investors could help to promote increased flows of international investment. Pursuant to the Washington Convention, ICSID provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is entirely voluntary. However, once the parties have consented to arbitration under the Washington Convention, neither can unilaterally withdraw its consent. Moreover, all Contracting States of the Washington Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce ICSID arbitral awards. Provisions on ICSID arbitration are commonly found in investment contracts between governments of member countries and investors from other member countries. Advance consents by governments to submit investment disputes to ICSID arbitration can also be found in many bilateral investment treaties including the Korea-China Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments(1992), the Korea-Japan Agreement for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment(2003) and the Korea-Chile FTA, the latter was signed as of February 15, 2003 and is still pending in the National Assembly for its ratification. Arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is similarly one of the main mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes under the bilateral treaties on investment. Therefore, it is a problem of vital importance that Korean parties interested in investment to foreign countries should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes under the Washington Convention and bilateral investment treaties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2001

$\ulcorner$The South-North Joint Declaration$\lrcorner$ of June 15, 2000 made by President Kim Dae Jung and National Defense Committee Chairman Kim Jong Il will contribute to the activation of economic exchange between south and north Korea. To realize the fundamental spirit of the South-North Joint Declaration, the authorities concerned of south and north Korea have reached an agreement titled $\ulcorner$Agreement on Settlement Procedure of Commercial Disputes$\lrcorner$ last December. In this connection, a speedy and reasonable settlement of commercial disputes arising therefrom is becoming a problem of vital importance between south and north Korea. Also, south and north arbitral institutions have to consider a possible arbitration agreement carefully to solve the disputes systematically under the Agreement, which will serve as an example for similar arrangements and possible harmonization in East-West commercial relations. A variety of dispute settlements including friendly consultations, conciliation and arbitration will be used more frequently within the framework of the bilateral agreements of governmental or non-governmental level which have been concluded in the past between socialist and capitalistic economy countries. There is a growing tendency that East-West trade parties recognize and accept the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in their contracts. So it is advisable to use the UNCITRAL Rules in arbitrations of south and north Korea in case that the interested parties fail to agree on applicable rules. Finally it should be noted that pre-arbitral settlement called ‘joint conciliation’ should be reflected in the settlement mechanism of commercial disputes between south and north Korean parties as proved to be successful between the U.S. and China trade in the past.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2020

The Scope of Application of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and Foreign Investment Act This article examines whether the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and the Foreign Investment Act of North Korea apply to South Korean parties or companies. This article analyzes laws and agreements related to economic cooperation between South Korea and North Korea. Furthermore, this article compares and evaluates laws related to foreign investment and enacted in North Korea. Now, North Korea's door is closed due to economic sanctions against it, but it will be opened soon. Thus, this article prepares for the future opening of North Korea's markets. Is there a rule of laws in North Korea or just a ruler? Are there laws in North Korea? North Korea has enacted a number of legislation to attract foreign investors, referring to those Chinese laws. For example, North Korea enacted the Foreigner Investment Act, the Foreigner Company Act, the Foreign Investment Bank Act, the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, the Foreign Economic Contract Act, the International Trade Act, and the Free Economy and Trade Zone Act, among others. Article 2 (2) of the Foreign Investment Law of North Korea states, "Foreign investors are corporations and individuals from other countries investing in our country." It is interpreted that South Korea is not included in the "other countries" of this definition. According to many mutual agreements signed by South Korea and North Korea, the relationship between the two Koreas is a special relation inside the Korean ethnic group. An arbitration between a South Korean party and a North Korean party has the characteristics of both domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. If the South Korea and North Korea Commercial Arbitration Commission or the Kaesong Industrial Complex Arbitration Commission is not established, the possibility of arbitration by the Chosun International Trade Arbitration Commission, established under North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, should be examined. There have been no cases where the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act is applied to disputes between parties of South Korea and North Korea. It might be possible to apply the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act by recognizing the "foreign factor" of a dispute between the South Korean party and North Korean party. It is necessary to raise legislative clarifications by revising the North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act as to whether Korean parties or companies are included in the scope of this Act's application. Even if it is interpreted that South Korean parties or companies are not included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, disputes between South Korean companies and North Korean companies can be resolved by foreign arbitration institutes such as CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong, or SIAC in Singapore. Such arbitration awards could be enforced in North Korea pursuant to Article 64 of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. This is because the arbitration awards of foreign arbitration institutes are included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. The matter is how to enforce the North Korean laws when a North Korean party or North Korean government does not abide by the laws or their contracts. It is essential for North Korea to join the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.153-175
• /
• 2013

The issue of patent validity becomes a subject of dispute under the FTA and there is a definite difference of opinion between China, Japan, and Korea. In other words, the validity of a judgment on the patent was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency at a particular patent office. Thus, the issue arises where there is a potential judgment on patent validity. In this case, the Supreme Court rather than the patent office can offer a judgment from a judicial institution and can make a judgment in the case of a medication. In China, however, the lowest possibility of judgment on patent validity is predicted to occur in judicial institutions. Such a judgment is recognized as the Grand Bench Decision in Korea, and the court can judge the patent validation rather than the patent office. That is just the case in the Kilby case-it is invalid for reasons obvious in Japan. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the three countries. Especially in Japan, where after the Kilby case, they revised the patent law in 2004 to introduce Article 104-3, placing the judgment of patent validity in the court, even if the "Apparentness"is not requisite. Per this law, infringers can argue for patent invalidity not only the judgment of the patent invalidation but also the infringement lawsuit. From the point of view of Japan, Korea became the judgment of trademark validation by extension and obvious cases can become directly to judge through the Supreme Court about the right that needs to examinations and registrations. In terms of the mediation, it also provides a clue about the judgment of intellectual property validation and expands the scope of the mediation in the future. From now on, in order to have active mediation procedures in the three countries, China, Japan, and Korea would need to unify regulations and application scopes for mediation in the FTA negotiation and to look forward to achieve a vigorous mediation approach.

• 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 Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2007

This age is called the age of global trade, and the World Trade Organization is a forerunner in promoting the global free trade through multilateral negotiations as the global level. On the other hand, regional economic cooperation such as North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) is appearing, saying that promotion by WTO takes too much time. As is known to everybody, Europe is on the way of integrating member states through EU not to mention economic cooperation. Even in Asia such tendency is shown through ASEAN, Korea, China and Japan in Northeast Asia share geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Under the situation, efforts have been made between three countries of Korea, China and Japan for the conclusion of investment agreements including FTA. If the conclusion of the FTA between the three countries would be realized, it would promote regional trade and investment, contributing to economic growth in the Northeast Asian region. The writer in this paper reviewed the settlement of private commercial dispute including investment dispute arising from the FTA and investment agreements. The investment dispute is quite different from an ordinary commercial dispute arising from commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc. Therefore it is a problem of vital importance that the parties interested in investment under the FTA as well as the relevant investment agreement should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes arising therefrom. The ICSID Convention provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. All contracting states of the ICSID Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce the ICSID arbitral awards. The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") is also applicable for the enforcement of arbitral awards to be rendered under the FTA. As to applicable rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules may be required for the settlement of investment disputes under the FTA. This Rules has adopted by the internationally recognized arbitral organizations although it was developed primarily for use in ad hoc arbitration. The promotion of arbitral cooperation may be realized through agreements between arbitral institutions. Especially under the NAPTA system, a central common system was established to resolve jointly private commercial disputes arising from such free trades by the initiative of arbitral organizations among the member countries. It is called Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA), which may be a good example for the settlement promotion of the private commercial disputes between Korea and other relevant countries.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.253-275
• /
• 2006

Ever since the open and reform policy in 1987, China has adopted the socialistic market economy system and has been moving forward in economic reform. This gradually expanded their market economy. The open and reform policy achieved the highest average annual GDP growth rate of 9% and helped the country maintain high growth. China's economic growth in recent years has a lot to do with the international trading and direct investment by foreign corporations. China's entry into the WTO dramatically increased their amount of capital and investments due to their aggressive investments with foreign corporations. It is quite amazing that investments in China has been constantly increasing while the direct investments worldwide is decreasing. Moreover, increase in such investments is contributing to China's job creation, as well as, the expansion of international trading. When international economic exchange started between Japan and China in the 1970s, it was in the form of aid for developing countries, hence the collection of the investment was out of the question. It was in the 1990s that Japan started the full-scale investments with China and it was mostly centered in transfer of the production base. Japanese corporations aim was to mass produce goods less expensively using abundant and cheap labor and to sell them to Japan and other countries. The amount of Japan's exports and imports compared with China is increasing every year but the trade deficit has gone into the red. The dollar amount has been decreased from $ 27 billion in 2001 to $ 18 billion in 2003. The problems and damages in the system of justice and administrative confrontation that Japanese corporations are facing are continuously at a stand-still even after China's entry into the WTO. It has been 20 years since Japan's advance in China and during that period, the Japanese corporations brought many changes ranging from exports/imports to direct investment. Although Japan's new corporations tend to be located in the mid-western part of China, rather than the coastal areas, the region itself is not the cause for the confrontation. The problem stems from the Japanese treating the Chinese as if they were Japanese because they look similar due to their Asian ancestry. In reality the Chinese have completely different ways of doing business. Here we will take a look at the international trading and direct investment of Japanese corporations in China and study the conflicts that occurred in business transactions with China through real examples.