• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.519-544
• /
• 2011

Clauses on national treatment in the bilateral investment treaties including FTA state that, the foreign investor and his investments are 'accorded treatment no less favourable than that which the host state accords to its own investors'. Hence the purpose of the clause is to oblige a host state to make no negative differentiation between foreign and national investors when enacting and applying its rules and regulations and thus to promote the position of the foreign investor to the level accorded to nationals. As a matter of legal drafting technique, while the basic clause is generally the same, the practical implications differ due to more or less wide-ranging exemptions of certain business sectors. It is generally agreed that the application of the clause is fact-specific. This paper deals with problems in drafting clauses on national treatment in practice, introduces several considerations to adjust the level of national treatment, so it can be made more represents the interest of our country.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2018

Due to the increasing number of foreign investments made by state-owned enterprises, there has been a growth in the number of investment arbitration claims submitted by them. However, international investment treaties including the ICSID Convention are intended to apply to investor-state disputes and according to Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the claimant has to be "a national of another Contracting State." This raises the question of whether state-owned companies can be considered as "nationals of another Contracting State" or private investors. This issue has been discussed in the ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction in BUCG v. Yemen which has been released in 2017. Since there would be more claims related to the standing of state-owned enterprises as claimants, it is required to understand whether state-owned enterprises could be permitted access to the ICSID under the ICSID Convention Article 25. Moreover, the ICSID cases addressing the jurisdictional issues including BUCG v. Yemen has to be closely analyzed. In particular, as the Broches test was applied in order to decide the standing of state-owned companies, it is necessary to examine how the Broches criteria has been interpreted and adopted in the ICSID cases.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.45-58
• /
• 2014

It is a well recognised rule in international law that the property of aliens cannot be taken. The question of whether indirect expropriation and government regulatory measures require compensation is an important issue in international investment law. Bilateral investment treaties and other investment agreements contain brief and general indirect expropriation provisions. These focus on the effect of government action and do not address the distinction between compensable and non-compensable regulatory actions. It is generally accepted that a state is not responsible for loss of property or for other economic disadvantages resulting from bona fide general taxation accepted as within the police power of states, provided it is not discriminatory. Yukos Oil Company is a Russian oil and gas company engaged in exploration, refining, and marketing activities. It is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. Yukos Oil Company has its production operations in Russia and markets its products in Europe. An international tribunal ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish investors for the losses they suffered when Russia seized the Yukos Oil Company on July 26, 2012. This has been the subject of several judicial proceedings and academic publications. This paper explores which circumstances do not lead to taxation amounting to expropriation. The author suggests that under the following circumstances, taxation would not amount to expropriation. First, taxation should be non-discriminatory. Also a lawful exercise of the taxation powers of governments would not amount to expropriation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2009

One of the controversial issues in investor-state investment arbitration is the interpretation of "umbrella clause" that is found in most BIT and FTAs. This treaty clause requires on Contracting State of treaty to observe all investment obligations entered into with foreign investors from the other Contracting State. This clause did not receive in-depth attention until SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines cases produced starkly different conclusions on the relations about treaty-based jurisdiction and contract-based jurisdiction. More recent decisions by other arbitral tribunals continue to show different approaches in their interpretation of umbrella clauses. Following the SGS v. Philippines decision, some recent decisions understand that all contracts are covered by umbrella clause, for example, in Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, Sempra Energy Int'l v. Argentina and Enron Corp. V. Argentina. However, other recent decisions have found a different approach that only certain kinds of public contracts are covered by umbrella clauses, for example, in El Paso Energy Int'l Co. v. Argentina, Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentina and CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina. With relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most of tribunals have the position that the contractual remedy should not affect the jurisdiction of BIT tribunal. Even some tribunals considered that there is no need to exhaust contract remedies before bringing BIT arbitration, provoking suspicion of the validity of sanctity of contract in front of treaty obligation. The decision of the Annulment Committee In CMS case in 2007 was an extraordinarily surprising one and poured oil on the debate. The Committee composed of the three respected international lawyers, Gilbert Guillaume and Nabil Elaraby, both from the ICJ, and professor James Crawford, the Rapportuer of the International Law Commission on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, observed that the arbitral tribunal made critical errors of law, however, noting that it has limited power to review and overturn the award. The position of the Committee was a direct attack on ICSID system showing as an internal recognition of ICSID itself that the current system of investor-state arbitration is problematic. States are coming to limit the scope of umbrella clauses. For example, the 2004 U.S. Model BIT detailed definition of the type of contracts for which breach of contract claims may be submitted to arbitration, to increase certainty and predictability. Latin American countries, in particular, Argentina, are feeling collectively victims of these pro-investor interpretations of the ICSID tribunals. In fact, BIT between developed and developing countries are negotiated to protect foreign investment from developing countries. This general characteristic of BIT reflects naturally on the provisions making them extremely protective for foreign investors. Naturally, developing countries seek to interpret restrictively BIT provisions, whereas developed countries try to interpret more expansively. As most of cases arising out of alleged violation of BIT are administered in the ICSID, a forum under the auspices of the World Bank, these Latin American countries have been raising the legitimacy deficit of the ICSID. The Argentine cases have been provoking many legal issues of international law, predicting crisis almost coming in actual investor-state arbitration system. Some Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, already showed their dissatisfaction with the ICSID system considering withdrawing from it to minimize the eventual investor-state dispute. Thus the disagreement over umbrella clauses in their interpretation is becoming interpreted as an historical reflection on the continued tension between developing and developed countries on foreign investment. There is an academic and political discussion on the possible return of the Calvo Doctrine in Latin America. The paper will comment on these problems related to the interpretation of umbrella clause. The paper analyses ICSID cases involving principally Latin American countries to identify the critical legal issues arising between developing and developed countries. And the paper discusses alternatives in improving actual investor-State investment arbitration; inter alia, the introduction of an appellate system and treaty interpretation rules.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제25권10호
• /
• pp.185-191
• /
• 2020

본 연구는 디지털 경제하에서 고정사업장 확대로 인한 차입금의 범위가 확대됨으로써 과소자본세제에서 차입금에 대한 지급이자 산정하는 방법을 이전가격과세제도의 정상가격방법으로 일원화하는 방안을 제시하며 정상가격 도출과 관련하여 블록체인 기반 환경 구축에 대한 필요성을 제시하고자 한다. 과소자본세제의 이자공제가 가능한 차입금 금액을 산정 시 이전가격과세제도의 정상가격방법으로 일원화하는 방안은 이전가격세제의 적용범위가 과소자본세제의 적용범위를 포함하기에 조세조약상 및 통상조약상 무차별 원칙이 외국인이 투자한 내국법인과 외국법인의 국내사업장 및 순수내국법인에게도 적용되기에 해결 될 수 있다. 차입금에 관한 '특수관계가 없는 자 간의 통상적인 차입'에 대한 규정 부재에 대한 문제는 블록체인 플랫폼 기반에 공유되는 거래로 인해 차입금에 대한 비교가능한 거래가 투명하게 공유됨으로써 비교가능한 차입규모 및 차입 조건의 범위에 대한 문제점을 해결 할 수 있다. 본 연구는 이자비용을 활용한 소득이전을 방지하고자 하는 과소자본세제제도에 대한 문제점과 개선안을 제시함으로써 정책 입안 및 수행하는 당국에 정책적 방향성을 제공한다는 점에서 본 연구의 공헌점이 있다 하겠다.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국무역상무학회 2006년도 제35회 하계 정기세미나
• /
• pp.45-72
• /
• 2006

The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary environmental and social guidelines for ethical project finance. These principles commit banks and other signatories to not finance projects that fail to meet these guidelines. The principles were conceived in 2002 on an initiative of the International Finance Corporation and launched in 2003. Since then, dozens of major banks have adopted the Principles, and with these banks among them accounting for more than three quarters of all project loan market volume the Principles have become the de facto standard for all banks and investors on how to deal with potential social and environmental effects of projects to be financed. While regarding the Principles an important initiative, NGOs have criticised the Principles for not producing real changes in financing activities and for allowing projects to go through that should have been screened out by the Principles, such as the Sakhalin-II oil and gas project in Russia. In early 2006, a process of revision of the principles was begun. The Equator Principles state that endorsing banks will only provide loans directly to projects under the following circumstances: - The risk of the project is categorized in accordance with internal guidelines based upon the environmental and social screening criteria of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). - For all medium or high risk projects (Category A and B projects), sponsors complete an Environmental Assessment, the preparation of which must meet certain requirements and satisfactorily address key environmental and social issues. - The Environmental Assessment report addresses baseline environmental and social conditions, requirements under host country laws and regulations, applicable international treaties and agreements, sustainable development and use of renewable natural resources, protection of human health, cultural properties, and biodiversity, including endangered species and sensitive ecosystems, use of dangerous substances, major hazards, occupational health and safety, fire prevention and life safety, socio-economic impacts, land acquisition and land use, involuntary resettlement, impacts on indigenous peoples and communities, cumulative impacts of existing projects, the proposed project, and anticipated future projects, participation of affected parties in the design, review and implementation of the project, consideration of feasible environmentally and socially preferable alternatives, efficient production, delivery and use of energy, pollution prevention and waste minimization, pollution controls (liquid effluents and air emissions) and solid and chemical waste management. - Based on the Environmental Assessment, Equator banks then make agreements with their clients on how they mitigate, monitor and manage those risks through an 'Environmental Management Plan'. Compliance with the plan is required in the covenant. If the borrower doesn't comply with the agreed terms, the bank will take corrective action, which if unsuccessful, could ultimately result in the bank canceling the loan and demanding immediate repayment. - For risky projects, the borrower consults with stakeholders (NGO's and project affected groups) and provides them with information on the risks of the project. - If necessary, an expert is consulted. The Principles only apply to projects over 50 million US dollars, which, according to the Equator Principles website, represent 97% of the total market. In early 2006, the financial institutions behind the Principles launched stakeholder consultations and negotiations aimed at revising the principles. The draft revised principles were met with criticism from NGO stakeholders, who in a joint position paper argued that the draft fails by ignoring the most serious critiques of the principles: a lack of consistent and rigorous implementation.