• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.89-121
• /
• 2015

Investor-State Dispute Settlement(ISDS) grants a foreign investor the right to access an international arbitrator, if he believes actions taken by a host government are in breach of commitments made in an investment agreement or an investment treaty. The arbitration procedure of ICSID is made specifically to resolve investment disputes, so most of investment disputes have been settled in accordance with the procedure. Owing to limitation of dispute settlements through the ICSID arbitration procedure, several investment dispute conciliation schemes have been emerged as alternatives. In the case of a conciliation, the conciliation procedure will be in progress based on arbitrary agreement between parties, and if both parties agree on a conciliation program, then the arbitrary execution rate is relatively higher than that of arbitration procedures. In addition, it is evaluated that the time duration of conducting a conciliation procedure is in general rather short in 8 to 24months, and its incumbent cost is also rather inexpensive. Most of all, through amicable settlement of a dispute between a foreign investor and a host state, the foreign investor may continue his investment activities without a hitch, while the host state may invite more investment without any risk of losing its external credibility. In conclusion, it is desirable to lead any investment dispute between a foreign investor and a host state settle in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure as specified in the relevant investment agreement. In addition, to make the foreign investor continue his investment activities, it will be necessary to provide a separate investment dispute conciliation system aside from such arbitration procedures to cope any unexpected incident flexibly.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.149-171
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Measures against Risks in International Investment Agreement: focusing on Umbrella Clause and MIGA. Umbrella Clauses have become a regular feature of international investment agreements and have been included to provide additional protection to investors by covering the contractual obligations in investment agreements between host countries and foreign investors. The meaning of umbrella clauses is one of the most controversial issues with which international arbitral tribunals have been recently confronted with while adjudicating investment disputes brought before them MIGA issues guarantees against non-commercial risks for investments, such as: currency transfer restrictions, expropriations, war and civil disturbances and breach of contract by host governments, and the case that the investor obtains an arbitration award or judical decision for damages and is unable to enforce it after a specified period. Furthermore, MIGA undertakes a wide range of mediation activities designed to remove obstacles to the flow of foreign direct investment in its developing member countries.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.141-158
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to examine the validity or effectiveness of the Arbitration Clause such as Model Clause I, and to confirm how other issues such as arbitrable "investment", appointment of arbitrators and law governing the agreement be reflected in the agreement. However, the parties should be sure that the arbitration clause is valid if they have checked whether, for their particular situation, the ICSID Centre has jurisdiction. For the validity of the Arbitration Clause, first the host country and the country which the investor belong to must be "contracting states" to the ICSID Convention. Second, the specific consent to arbitrate must be expressed in writing in the investment contract or in a national investment law or in an investment protection treaty. The issue of "nationality" of an other contracting state is determined by the place of incorporation or the location of the head office. In case the parties have doubts about a valid consent to arbitrate, Art. 41 of the ICSID Convention provides, regarding ICSID jurisdiction, that the tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. It follows that ICSID Arbitration has an autonomous and exclusive character. As a consequence, domestic courts may not interfere with the question of ICSID's jurisdiction, which is called as "rule of abstention".

• 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).

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.5
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2014

The commercial arbitration is considered an effective and rapid means in solving problems and finding solutions for disputes between the business partners. For the development of commercial arbitration, there is a need to study arbitration in practice as well as in theory. This paper analyse the situation of commercial arbitration system in Pakistan both with respect to domestic laws and international laws applicable in Pakistan. The Arbitration Bill 2009 aims to consolidate law relating domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as well as settlement of international investment disputes. Pakistan while defending investment claims and in order to restore investor's confidence, in 2011, Pakistan introduced a law to secure foreign investments. This study explains the relationship of old and new Pakistani arbitration laws and elaborates the changes brought about by the new enactments and gives a comprehensive analysis of Pakistani arbitration laws, rules and procedures dealing with arbitration agreements and awards. In the absence of relevant trade information in Pakistan, this paper is designed to meet the needs of a Korean international trade scholars to obtain an understanding of Pakistani commercial arbitration system quickly.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.65-86
• /
• 2015

Under current international investment law clear criteria to determine standards of indirect expropriation are absent. Arbitral tribunals determine on a case-by-case whether an indirect expropriation has occurred by conducting a fact-based inquiry. However, three common determination standards can be inferred by analyzing prior arbitration cases. The appropriate analytical framework that can be applied to determine whether a state's measure constitutes an indirect expropriation is as follows. i) the degree of economic invasion of the state's action into the foreign investor's property rights and durability of the period, ii) interference with the foreign investor's distinct and reasonable investment-backed expectations, and iii) the nature, purpose and character of the state's measure. Therefore, it is necessary to fully acknowledge and to utilize strategically this determination standard. However, derived standards cannot be applied to all disputes en masse. So, it is desirable to exclude ambiguity and to clearly define the determination standard of indirect expropriation in investment agreements, since arbitral tribunals can apply different determination standards on a case-by-case basis. And, based on the discussions until now, more developed standards and direction in response to demand should be established through consistent analysis and review of precedents related to indirect expropriation. Lastly, This study is expected to be a useful guideline to prepare a necessary countermeasure to prevent dispute related to indirect expropriation beforehand or in case of dispute occurrence.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.25-44
• /
• 2014

Conflict between transnational environmental issues and foreign investment in capital-importing states can be commonly found. Actually, several investor-state dispute arbitration cases like Bilcon v. Canada, S.D. Myers v. Canada, and Metalclad v. Mexico concerned environmental matters. States are worried about their measures for securing the environment might be deemed to go against international investment agreements and foreign investors also are anxious because of excessive regulations. Against this backdrop, stakeholders attempt to strike a balance between securing foreign investment and preserving the environment. This article argues that the investment chapter of the Korea-US FTA tries to solve environment-investment collision in investor-state disputes. Before analyzing the provisions of the investment chapter most relevant to environmental issues, this article points out the most typical types of environmental clauses included in international investment agreements. The investment chapter of the Korea-US FTA has provisions which effectively prevent measures from becoming useless when those measures are legitimate measures relevant to environmental matters. This does not mean that the Korea-US FTA completely solves the conflict between environmental issues and the protection of foreign investment, but still it paves the way for a prudent solution which would hash out this thorny problem.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2022

Climate change is a man-made disaster that has become a major global concern today. With increasingly visible symptoms of climate change in recent years, it has become evident that climate action can no longer be dismissed as a mere matter of choice, but as a matter of survival for the human being. To address the impending climate change crisis in a collaborative and sustainable manner, the international community has been taking various measures including Kyoto protocol and the Paris Agreement. With respect to the private investor's project investment in line with international agreements on climate change, recently we have seen multiple legal judgments which clearly indicate the subject of judicial responsibility for investment in climate change related projects. However, in order to hold judicial responsibility occurring during the implementation of climate change related projects, a causal relationship between the responsible entities and clear responsibility must be demonstrated, and applicable institutional arrangements need to be arranged. It may be the right time for global community to consider shifting not only to human ethical obligations but also legal obligations. In this regard, concerned governments should consider legislating arbitration laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements in more specific and applicable manner.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.187-213
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this article is to examine Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements. Most BITs and other investment treaties provide for FET of foreign investments. Today, this concept is the most frequently invoked standard in investment disputes. It is also the standard with the highest practical relevance: a majority of successful claims pursued in international arbitration are based on a violation of the FET standard. The concept of FET is not new but has appeared in international documents for some time. Some of these documents were nonbinding others entered into force as multilateral or bilateral treaties. Considerable debate has surrounded the question of whether the FET standard merely reflects the internationalminimum standard, as contained in customary international law, or offers an autonomous standard that is additional to general international law. As a matter of textual interpretation, it seems implausible that a treaty would refer to a well-known concept like the "minimum standard of treatment in customary international law" by using the expression "fair and equitable treatment." Broad definitions or descriptions are not the only way to gauge the meaning of an elusive concept such as FET. Another method is to identify typical factual situations to which this principle has been applied. An examination of the practice of tribunals demonstrates that several principles can be identified that are embraced by the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Some of the cases discussed clearly speak to the central roles of transparency, stability, and the investor's legitimate expectations in the current understanding of the FET standard. Other contexts in which the standard has been applied concern compliance with contractual obligations, procedural propriety and due process, action in good faith, and freedom from coercion and harassment. In short, meeting the investor's central legitimate concern of legal consistency, stability, and predictability remains a major, but not the only, ingredient of an investment-friendly climate in which the host state in turn can reasonably expect to attract foreign investment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2014

These days, in line with the increase of opportunities in our country's firms to do transaction, large-scale M&A and investment with foreign firms incorporating arbitration clauses in the contracts have become general practice. Recently, Singapore has come to the fore as a place of arbitration and, particularly, Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) was assessed as the favored international arbitration institution uniquely in Asia at the 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, along with the ICC, LCIA, and AAA/ICDR. Therefore, the country's firms need to understand properly the international arbitration procedure of Singapore. This study examines the international arbitration system of Singapore, focusing on the arbitration procedure of the SIAC. The Center revised arbitration rules twice in 2010 and 2013, and established the Court of Arbitration of SIAC in April 2013 for the first time in Asia in pursuit of stricter neutrality and promptness. It further seeks to run the arbitration procedure fairly by selecting a third country's people as an arbitrator, while its arbitration expenses are cheaper than those of the ICC. The study believes that for the country's international arbitration institutions such as the KCAB to jump forward as a world-class international arbitration institution, the Korean government should render positive support to them, learning from Singapore which does not spare any political and financial assistance to cultivate international arbitration institutions. On the other hand, KCAB should also try hard to improve in the aspects of neutrality, fairness, and promptness and to be selected as a trustworthy international arbitration institution by firms in Asian countries.