• 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.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 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.313-328
• /
• 2013

Today FTA extends over the world and Korea as a main member of international trade is no exception. In the past Korea, as the developing countries, has made endlessly effort to induce foreign investment from foreign enterprise and/or government to be a truly OECD countries today and made it. Korea's trade economy was reached 1 trillion dollars in 2012. Now we have to find a new way to produce, process, procure goods from foreign investment and also need to protect our profit and/or rights within foreign judicial territory. There are two method to protect foreign enterprise or government. First they rely on general principles in WTO or Bilateral Investment Treaty that the principle of equality, national treatment, and most-favored-nation treatment, you can create a predictable environment to protect foreign enterprise and/or government. Second they need to incorporate contractual clauses in their agreement such as stabilization clause, force majeure, arbitration, governing law or sovereign immunity. Of course there are many things left behind to consider I hope it will be helpful to those who prepare foreign investment contract.

• 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.17 no.2
• /
• pp.141-165
• /
• 2007

This study aims to make a contribution to the promotion of trade and economic development of South Korea, and, at the same time, call attention to the increasing trend of investment agreements concluded within Free Trade Agreements (FTA) by examining theoretically FTAs and dispute resolution and investigating systematically the conclusion procedure of agreements, and the system, institutions, and jurisdiction of dispute resolution, and presenting these findings to the government and investors involved. The most problematic aspect in the legal process of arbitration involving disputes over investment is that of arguments concerning the right of jurisdiction. When a dispute arises, even though an investor files for arbitration at an ICSID institution, the parties become involved in another energy-consuming argument even before proceeding to the hearing and decision of the original plan in cases in which the respondent of the dispute files an objection to the decision rights of the arbitral tribunal. As the main basis for this type of plea, the point of non-existence of jurisdiction is first raised where the applicable dispute does not fall under the range of investments defined in individual investment contracts or investment agreements such as a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). To avoid an open-ended definition of investment for the range of investments, articles concerning investments in the FTA and NAFTA between Canada and the USA adopt the limited closed-list method. Article 96 of the FTA between Japan and Mexico applied the same abovementioned method of limited form of definition regarding range of investments and concluded BITs between member countries of APEC applied a similar method as well. Instead of employing the previously used inclusive definition, the BITs concluded between countries of Latin America and the USA are equipped with limited characteristics of an investment. Furthermore, to correspond with this necessary condition the three following requirements are needed : 1) fixed investment funding; 2) expected profits resulting from such investments; 3) and the existence of fixed risk bearing.

• 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".

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.373-390
• /
• 2008

본 논문은 국내세법, 한 중 조세협약, 중국세법을 근거하여 특수목적회사(SPC), 사모펀드(PEF) 등의 간접투자 방식과 직접투자 방식에 대한 투자시뮬레이션을 활용하여 최상의 투자형태 협상전략을 제시하였다. 분석결과 중국내 고정사업장이 없는 경우 홍콩과 같은 조세회피지역에 특수목적회사를 설립하여 중국에 투자하는 형태가 직접투자 혹은 국내에 PEF 설립을 통한 투자보다 더 합리적이었다. 더욱이 특수목적회사는 국내의 여러 가지 규제에서 벗어나 자유로운 펀드운용과 새로운 투자추진시 국내과실 송금 처리절차를 거치지 않고 재투자가 가능하다는 점을 포함하여 다양한 장점을 가지고 있었다. 중국 등의 해외투자 고려시 조세회피지역에 특수목적회사를 설립하고 이를 통해 투자를 실행하는 것이 가장 효율적인 방안임을 고려하여 투자방식과 JV협상을 진행하여야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-18
• /
• 2017

International legal reviews on ISD, a procedure for resolving disputes under the Korea-US FTA, are examined from the perspective of law. If the ISD system does not exist, even if the investor suffers damage due to the illegal act of the host country, he or she must file a lawsuit through the court of the host country, which is unreasonable from the investor's point of view and makes it difficult to guarantee fairness and transparency. Some of the Koreans pointed out that there are some problems with the KORUS FTA dispute settlement regulations, and that the United States federal courts are taking a friendly attitude to the decisions made by the US Customs in determining the dispute by the KORUS FTA Agreement and the US Customs Act. In cases where the State does not violate international law but results in harmful consequences, the responsibility of one country is borne by the treaty. Foreign investment always comes with many challenges and risks. Therefore, the ISD system is a fair and universal arbitration system, which is considered to be a necessary system even for protecting the Korean companies investing abroad. In the investment treaty, compensation for the nationalization of foreign property and reimbursement under the laws of the host country were dissatisfied with foreign investors. In particular, some Koreans have pointed out that there are some problems in the KORUS FTA dispute resolution regulations and there is a need for further discussion and research. Based on the experiences and wisdoms gained in the course of Korea-US FTA negotiations, the dispute arbitration mechanism is urgently needed to reduce the possibility of disputes and to make amicable directions.

• 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.