• 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.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.12-23
• /
• 2021

Due to high proportion of exports, Korea has a higher dependence on the global value chain (GVC) than other major developed countries. This reason, Korea has a structure that is sensitive to GVC changes. This is because Korean exports are concentrated on specific countries and items, and most of the materials for export tend to depend on imports. Currently, export restrictions resulting from trade disputes with Japan can affect the industry of Korea as a whole due to the supply of core materials. Therefore, in order to minimize economic damage caused by export regulations in the current situation, it is necessary to reorganize the GVC, through efforts to rapidly diversify imports and localize imports that depend on Japan. To this end, it is necessary to derive and classify imported goods that depend on Japan, and to localize items that are difficult to diversify imports, and prompt R&D investment is required for this. This study aims to support R&D investment policy through quantitative analysis based on big data rather than a decision-making method based on expert-centered qualitative analysis.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.103-124
• /
• 2012

Because the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea-U.S. FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have an overlapping contracting party, the United States, their provisions have much in common. The investment chapters of these agreements, especially, show many similarities, and thanks to these similarities, it is likely that the Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration tribunal for investor-state disputes regarding the environment will put great weight on the NAFTA tribunals' interpretations of those similar provisions. Since the NAFTA tribunals have already handled many environment-related arbitration cases, their interpretations will help heighten the predictability of environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration cases. This paper analyzes the environment-related NAFTA cases in which the tribunal has issued an award, which are the Metalclad case, S.D. Myers case, Waste Management case, Methanex case, Glamis Gold case, and Chemtura case. According to this analysis, the most controversial NAFTA provisions have been Article 1102 (national treatment), Article 1105 (minimum treatment standard, fair and equitable treatment), and Article 1110 (expropriation). The NAFTA tribunals applied the requirement of these articles in a strict manner, reducing the possibility of finding a violation. After the aforementioned analysis, this paper proceeds to compare the national treatment, minimum treatment standard (fair and equitable treatment), and expropriation provisions of the Korea-U.S. FTA and NAFTA and to predict the impact that the environment-related awards under NAFTA can have on environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA cases. It is expected that the NAFTA interpretations of the national treatment and minimum treatment provisions are likely be used as they are, but not the interpretations of expropriation, because of the differences in the expropriation provisions of the two agreements.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2018

This article examines whether parties may agree to contractually waive the right to bring annulment proceedings. Alternately it looks at whether certain grounds of annulment may be waived. The ability for parties to resolve this issue contractually by waiving this element of Article 52(1)(b) ICSID offers a potentially powerful solution. For parties to agree beforehand to the circumstances where tribunals have not 'manifestly exceeded their power' could allow them to remove the unpredictability of annulment on this foundation. Even in the event that an ad hoc committee is against the validity of waiver, it may be possible for a party to frame this restriction as an interpretative agreement by the parties rather than strictly as waiver of a ground of annulment. Ultimately, the wish to enter into such an agreement would likely only be driven by a few exceptional commercial need or prior negative experience with the remedy of annulment. In that cases, and depending on the nature of the specific concern with annulment, a limited waiver or interpretative agreement on certain Article 52(1) ICSID grounds may certainly be appropriate.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2007

This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.165-198
• /
• 2014

The national R&D performance evaluation system in Korea has been influenced by 'New Public Management' since the 1980s. The 1997 IMF crisis in Korea has necessitated the overhaul of S&T policy strategies in Korea. Reflecting this, effective distribution and utilization of S&T investment and resources has emerged as a crucial policy agenda, while expansionary investment in S&T maintained. During the period of 1999-2005, the R&D evaluation has been more focused on the input side and execution processes than on the results of R&D. Evaluation results were to be reflected in the budgeting of national R&D, but there were some disputes over how to make use of evaluation results between the budgeting ministry and the evaluation agency partly because they were two separate entities. After the advent of the new government(1998-2003) which advocated 'science and technology-oriented society', the national R&D evaluation system has evolved through a new legislation, the Performance Assessment Act, and the establishment of Science & Technology Innovation Agency to build up the unique framework for national R&D evaluation differentiated from the assessment system for general government investment programs. Most recently, due to 'Comprehensive Improvement Plan' in 2013, various components of national R&D evaluation seem to move on a new evolutionary track. For example, different types of evaluation are being developed and tried in accordance with differing evaluation goals, and the individual ministries and the research councils has got more enhanced autonomy and responsibility regarding R&D evaluation. So-called 'tailored' evaluation methods, taking into consideration the characteristics of programs and institutes / organizations to be evaluated, are now being tried. Competences of evaluation experts and agencies has also to be improved and strengthened.

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.65-81
• /
• 2004

Foreign direct investment (FDI) by firms has various motives in terms of the strategy for firms' long-term growth. This research uses the case study of Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama to analyze the motives of the Korean auto industry's FDI in the U.S. and the locational factors that determined the selection of the site. This paper starts from the question of why Hyundai made the decision to invest in the U.S., which is not favorable in terms of production cost, especially considering that its exports to the U.S. have been on the increase. The results indicate that the strongest motive for the decision to invest in the U.S. was to ameliorate the trade friction between Korea and the U.S. Given that Hyundai depends on the U.S. market to a large extent for its exports, the foremost motive was to use local production in order to reduce the serious trade imbalance in the automobile sector between Korea and the U.S. in order that trade friction with the U.S. may be avoided and causes for trade disputes may be reduced. Other motives such as improving the access to local consumers were of secondary importance. After the selection of the country in which to invest, however, various factors were considered in the decision regarding the location of the plant, and incentives by local governments ultimately played a key role in this decision. The results imply that the Korean manufacturing industry's investment in the U.S. cannot be explained by traditional FDI theories and instead was greatly driven by a strategic defensive motive. In addition, the results confirm that the design of an appropriate incentive structure by host governments is important for attracting FDI.

• Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.474-488
• /
• 2015

Conflicts in the construction of large public facilities carried out as national projects are crucial issues we have to deal with. There are growing concerns for and oppositions to large construction projects in terms of environmental deterioration and the dissolution of local communities. In the case of projects that promise the creation of jobs and investment, the competition and disputes are increasing and being intensified. Therefore, there is a considerable amount of study on the competitions and conflicts between regions. Previous studies have focused on the procedures of public policy, governance structure, the role of local media. Contrary to the previous studies, this study investigates the spatial ways of constructing conflicts. Based on the analysis of the project of "Southeastern New International Airport", there is a mismatch between the spatial boundary of cost/benefit and agents (regions) of disputes. The agents of conflicts also show the politics of multiple scales by constructing alliances and breaking the network in the process of the airport project. The findings suggest that the conflicts on regional development should be understood as the construction of dynamic regional politics on regional development rather than as the by-product in the practice of policies.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.513-536
• /
• 2012

This study aims to examine the status and problems of trade risk management of Korean companies in Incheon area trading with China and to suggest some improvement measures. On the survey with twenty five questions on company profiles, business process and transactions, claims and trade risks, etc. with Chinese trading partners, the following facts are found. In general, Chinese policies on foreign trade, finance, labour, investment, etc. and China's logistics system have caused great worries to Korean companies in Incheon area. This kind of risks from Chinese government policies and China's economic structure are beyond control of each company. Korean government should take more effective measures to negotiate with Chinese government. In the stage of contract, procurement and transportation, settlement, disputes resolution and etc. Korean companies in Incheon area also have many problems with relatively high risks with Chinese trading partners. Based on these survey results, some suggestions for better trade risk management are given.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.117-133
• /
• 2019

This paper examines the most-favored-nation treatment clause on the BITs concluded by China and examines the attitudes of China on the application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs by period as the scope of arbitration increases. Moreover, this study pointed out the problems that would be exposed if the most-favored-nation treatment clause applies to ISDs and then also suggested solutions. The conclusions of this study are as follows; if the Chinese government strictly restricts the applicable expansion of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the dispute settlement procedure by considering only the position of the capital importing country, it implies a contradiction against the development trend of the arbitration system related to international investment disputes. Of course, in order to protect the rights of Chinese investors investing abroad, expanding the applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs procedure unconditionally may have a negative impact under China's dual status of being a capital-importing country and a capital-exporting country. Therefore, China should clearly define the scope of application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause, the completion of the local remedy for the host country in cases of BIT to be concluded in the future or amended, and also clearly define that the most-favored-nation treatment clause should not be retroactively applied into BITs already concluded as an exception of applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment.