• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• 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.

• 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.27 no.4
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to take a countermeasure of the investment treaty arbitration that Lone Star claimed to the Korean government. In particular, this study suggests procedural measures to be prepared by the Korean government after the arbitration award. The actual remedy in ICSID arbitration is the annulment procedure of arbitration award. Therefore, this study analyzed the measures that the Korean government can prepare based on the annulment grounds: the inadequacy of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the excessive power of the arbitrator, the corruption of the arbitrator, and the serious violation of the rules. First, the Korean government should decide whether to proceed with the annulment procedure after the arbitration award. Second, if they decide to do it, they should review the grounds of annulment. For example, it is possible to analyze whether the relationship between the arbitrator and Lone Star can be properly in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, whether Lone Star is eligible to apply for ICSID arbitration, or whether arbitration tribunal ignores the crucial evidence that can affect the arbitration award. Independently, the Korean government needs to discuss the investment arbitration appeal system in a long-term perspective.

• 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.29 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.157-181
• /
• 2007

The commercial relationship between South and North Korea is defined under the concept of economic relation and cooperation. To resolve any dispute that can arise from the trade and investment relations between South and North Korea, 'Agreement on the Procedures to Resolve Commercial Arbitration of South-North Korea' came into force in August 2003. Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea will be organized as the member lists of the committee were exchanged in July 2006 between South and North Korea. This committee must become a central system to settle the trade and investment disputes between South and North Korea. North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act was enacted to provide the foreign investors with the safe measures in their investments such as dispute resolution. But this Act can not dispute the trade and investment disputes between South and North Korea. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the activation of arbitration between South and North Korea by studying Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea introduced by Agreement on the Procedures to Resolve Commercial Arbitration of South-North Korea and Agreement on the Construction and Operation of Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea and finding the problems and solutions of Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.109-131
• /
• 2010

Investment Agreement is to be a part of FTA, as negotiating together both trade and investment. For example, it has a separate chapter about investment in KORUS FTA contract and is more detailed and inclusive than BIT contents which are traditional investment provisions. It is called to the investment norm of FT A. The investment agreement lures a foreign investment by providing the environment which is stable to the foreign investors. Hence, it plans in goal for the economic development of the home country. In international investment, the arbitration award cases are coming out to be divided into two parts applying MFN provisions in investor protective principles and dispute resolution process; the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. In the case of RosInvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation awarded in 2007, the arbitration tribunal interprets that the application scope of MFN provisions contain the more lucrative dispute provision than other BITs without limitations in entity right of the investor. This judgment is the same view as arbitration tribunal position of Maffezini case. The arbitration tribunal of Plama case has kept out an assertion magnifying the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction. That is, for applying more inclusive investor-nation resolution method from different treaty, tribunal mentioned that MFN provision had to see clearly a point of applying the investor-nation dispute resolution method. Dispute resolution process providing inclusive MFN provision has both the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. It needs ceaselessly to do the monitoring about cases of arbitration award. In conclusion, the point where MFN provisions are applied conclusively is recognized, but it is still controversial whether or not to magnify the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal applying MFN provisions. Therefore, it does not exist clear principle in the theory or in the award eases about the application scope for entity protection provision of MFN. Hence, The Korean government of Korea and local autonomous entities needs to keep their eyes on the trend of the international arbitration award cases in relation to the investment dispute for the future. Also, Korean government or local self-governing group must consider MFN provisions when they make a contract of international investment treaty such as writing concretely the application of MFN provisions from KORUS FTA.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.377-413
• /
• 2004

North Korea and South Korea agreed to refer their investment disputes to arbitration by adopting' Agreed Minutes on Procedures of Settlement of Commercial Disputes' on 16th December 2000. According to the Agreed Minutes, the two Koreas were to establish an arbitration commission within 6 months after the Agreed Minutes had been signed. In 2002, North Korea enacted laws to draw interest of foreign tourists to Mountain Kumgang and to boost investment into the region of Kaesung as it provided in those laws that commercial disputes should be settled by arbitration or judicial procedures. In October 2003, the two Koreas succeeded in adopting another Agreed Minutes as to the establishment and functioning of North-South Arbitration Commission. The fact that the two Koreas have agreed to establish an arbitration commission is meaningful since they are leading their lives quite differently in political, social, and economic sense for more than a half century. Although there still remain doubts as to the North Korean policy on nuclear matters, an arbitration commission could be a cornerstone for the set-up of the dispute settlement system between the two Koreas and a great help for investors from South Korea to pursue their possible legal claims as North Korea is eager to invite South Korean businessmen and other foreign investors to invest in its special economic areas. According to the Agreed Minutes of 2003, the two Koreas are going to adopt procedural rules for the arbitration commission. It will be a great challenge for them to agree on specific issues as to the operation of the arbitration commission. They have to set up a rester of arbitrators respectively and may have to enact or revise their own arbitration laws and rules reflecting the Agreed Minutes of 2000 and 2003. It is quite welcome that the two Koreas have agreed to set up an arbitration commission rather than resort to political or diplomatic means to settle their disputes. The success of the arbitration system between the two Koreas will make sure the safety of investment environment in the northen part of the Korean Peninsula and will bring the peace to the Korean peninsula earlier than expected.

• 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 Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.15-30
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper investigates the theories and practices of Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) clauses. The MFN clause became a controversial issue during the past two decades, especially in the context of investment arbitration. This paper aims to clarify a reasonable way to apply MFN clauses. It in particular focuses on the territoriality requirements and the scope of investment activity which are common features included in most of investment treaties. Design/methodology - This paper analyses two investment arbitration cases, Ansung Housing and Beijing Urban Construction. Through the case study, this paper reveals limitations of the currently dominant views on the operation of MFN clauses. It then tries to reconstruct the system of MFN application within the relevant arbitration principles. Findings - Tribunals of recent investment arbitration as represented in the two cases above employed strict literal interpretation of the treaty provisions, especially of the phrase "in its territory". This paper finds a more functional interpretation is appropriate and consistent with theories of public international law and developments of global economy. Originality/value - Existing studies either stuck to literal interpretation or suggested more flexible interpretation of the phrase "in its territory" without full explanation. This paper tries to fill the gap in the existing discussion by analyzing legal foundations and theoretical structure for an effective interpretation of MFN clauses.