• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.217-240
• /
• 2013

The investment environment in Korea and U.S. dramatically changed since Korea-US FTA. The key reasons for this successful change were liberalization and strengthened protection of investment along with trade liberalization which also brought investment market expansion. As the result of trade-diversion effect, investments between two countries have been enormously increased. Through a FTA with the big economy like US, Korea's FTA network has been largely expanded. Korea further needs to utilize this outcome when competing with other countries in investment markets.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.185-226
• /
• 2015

As in some developing countries and more recently some developed countries worldwide and in the Asian region, Australia has faced significant internal opposition and public debate especially over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As outlined in Part II(1), concerns have re-emerged and escalated since the first-ever claim was brought against Australia regarding its tobacco plain packaging legislation, in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia under an old BIT with Hong Kong. However, Australia signed bilateral FTAs with Korea in 2014 and with China in 2015, including ISDS protections, prompting several sets of parliamentary inquiries (Part II(2)). Australia's close trading partner, New Zealand, had already concluded an FTA with China in 2008 that included more expansive ISDS-backed investor protections. In 2015, the New Zealand Parliament has been debating ratification of its own FTA with Korea, with ISDS also now attracting growing scrutiny, as elaborated in Part III below. In both bilateral FTA negotiations, the present Korean government seems to have reverted to a strong preference for concluding investment agreements with extensive ISDS protections, despite public and parliamentary debate around 2011 in the context of ratifying its FTA with the United States. As mentioned briefly in the concluding Part IV, Korea's stance has significant implications for the future trajectory of treaty-based ISDS - and indeed international arbitration more generally - in the Asia-Pacific region, and perhaps even globally.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.193-237
• /
• 2018

The recent surge in the ISD lawsuit filed against the Korean government is likely to cause major domestic confusion. This is because in most cases, foreign investors have claimed billions of won in damages filed against Korea in the ISD lawsuit. Public opinion will be generated to abolish the ISD lawsuit system, which is included in the international investment agreement, when a decision comes out in the Elliott/Mason case or Lone Star case, which has already been completed by the hearing. It is clear that the ISD clause, which is commonly included in most of the BITs, FTAs, can be a limiting factor in the government's public policy, as shown by many investment disputes. However, it is not necessary to have a negative view of the ISD clause itself, given that it is a system that can protect Korean investors from illegal and inappropriate actions by local governments. Since Korea already allows the system of ISD lawsuits with many countries through FTAs and BITs, and negotiations are underway to sign FTAs with new countries, the possibility that foreign investors will refer to the ISD proceeding further to our government's public policy will increase. In order to prepare for an ISD lawsuit, the Korean government has launched a response team consisting of government practitioners, private scholars, and legal professionals in the central government ministries to review major legal issues that are controversial in the cases of the ISD. In particular, local governments and public institutions, which fail to recognize the importance of international investment regulations and ISD clause, need to share and train relevant information so that all processes for public policy planning and implementation comply with international investment rules such as BITs and FTAs.

• Korean Journal of Poultry Science
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.57-66
• /
• 1991

The broiler industry in Korea has been gradually changing its structure of independent operation into integrated and coordinated production and marketing system. It was in 1960s when the broiler industry first tried the integrated effort, but never succeeded as it was expected since due mainly to growers' attitudes favorable for traditional operation and agribusiness' passive response on structure change. Until mid 1980s, however, a bit of partially integrated system had been evolved by several factor suppliers. Recent years have furthered its progress toward completely integrated pattern, the ultimate goal of broiler integration. It is true that the external factors including the GATT Negotiations through the Uruguay Round stimulated the people involved in the industry to find the way of making it competitive to survive in the open, liberalized world economic system rapidly emerging through the process of globalization. Once the industry realized the necessity of reducing the cost of production and improving the quality of it, the conclusion tended to come to the point of an entire structural alteration by means of integration rather than an improvement of a certain segment such as marketing. It is very obvious. therefore. that the movement toward the complete integration will speed up in a coming few years under the leadership of not only entrepreneurs but also producers group. According to a report. there were three almost complete integrators and thirteen partial integrators as of December, 1990, all of which eagerly directed toward the completely integrated system in due course . Among others as an advantage of integrated structure. the cost saving must be pointed out as the greatest one In a survey, it was estimated that the cost of dressed and ready-to-eat chicken could be lowered by 31.8 percent and 41.5 percent, respectively, over that to be under the independent, non-integrated system. As long as everybody concerned about the future of the industry in the open market mechanism realizes the importance of the structure change through an integration, the broiler sector of Korean agriculture shall be moving toward the direction of vertically and completely integrated structure in order to make it competitive, even to export, hopefully before 1995 or by the end of this century in any case.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.369-387
• /
• 2012

Throughout intensive negotiations on the KORUS FTA and even after its ratification on March 15, 2012, ISD (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) has been at the center of many controversies within the FTA. Although the original function of the ISD is intended to be a protectional measure for foreign investors, there have been many foreign investors who tried to use the ISD as a tool to attack a government and nullify the public policy demanding tremendous amount of compensation. Many of the NAFTA ISD cases including Ehtyl v. Canada and UPS v. Canada demonstrate such a behavior by foreign investors. It is the right time for Korean government to conduct in depth studies on NAFTA ISD cases because the precedents provide invaluable insights including the legal reasoning by the decision making authorities including ICSID and UNCITRAL. The lessons we would learn from those cases would prepare Korean government for expected ISD claims by foreign investors and enable the government to maximize its efficiency in policy making process under a new international trade environment, the KORUS FTA.