• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• 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.

• 영미문화
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.59-81
• /
• 2013

Samuel Beckett's literary sympathies with underdogs enslaved to authoritative figures, found in his earliest plays, continued in a more or less subdued form in his later plays: Not I is a good case in point thematizing a social authority psychologically embedded within a subject. The incessant bouts of self-defense, or confessional, which Mouth carries out on a dark stage is directed to an inner authority. In Civilization and Its Discontents (1931), Freud's diagnosis for individuals torn between the opposite calls of a social order-- which he called, by turns, civil society, civilization, and culture--and of individual freedom was a "neurosis." What Not I dramatizes seems to be this state of neurosis suffered by a subject bound to the contradictory calls of an internal social authority, which forces Mouth to carry on a confessional till she obtains a symbolically/linguistically viable social title of "I," and of her individualistic denial of the position("what?..who?..no!.. she!.."). Mouth's ordeal on stage does not signify the psychological pressure of the social system, with its disciplinary measures of guilt, justice, and punishment, triumphs over individualistic irregularities and abnormalities, for her "maddened" confession will never see its closure. The opposite psychological forces at work inside Mouth, who is both "in" and "out[side]" "this world," will keep engaging in an eternal battle. In a way, she is a perfect parable about us humans living within a system, "discontent" and hung between the contradictory calls of individualism and social collectiveness.

• 인지과학
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.167-207
• /
• 2015

본 연구는 외상후 스트레스 장애(Posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD)가 등장한 이후 현대 사회에서 외상 및 고통을 인식하고 이에 대응하는 방법을 조명하였고, 한국 사회의 외상 인식과 대응 방식을 검토하면서 외상 회복을 위한 대안 패러다임의 원칙을 제시하였다. 외상은 기억을 매개로 만성적인 고통을 야기하는 외부 스트레스 사건으로서, 미국정신의학회는 1980년 정신장애 진단 및 통계 편람에서 외상후 스트레스 장애를 공식 인정하였다. 외상후 스트레스 장애 진단의 개발은 피해자에게 도덕적 정당성을 부여하였고, 성공적인 치료 개입의 길을 열었으며, 신경생리학과 인지신경과학 분야에서 연구 성과 축적에 기여하였다. 그러나 이와 동시에, 고통에 대한 인식이 협소해졌고, 기술 개입의 한계를 넘어서는 대응 방안의 중요성이 간과되고 있다. 특히 한국사회의 분리와 부인의 역사적 맥락, 의료 및 전문가 중심 관료주의 기저에는 외상을 개인의 문제로 치환하려는 전략이 발견된다. 따라서 사회적 고통으로서 외상을 인식하고 대안 패러다임을 모색할 필요가 있다. 이 글은 진실 규명과 정의 회복, 회복 주체로서 생존자와 공동체의 책임, 최신 생물-심리학적 성과의 생태학적 적용, 그리고 회복이란 무엇인가에 관한 지속적인 논의를 중시하는 대안 패러다임의 원칙을 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• 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.