• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.313-332
• /
• 2013

Large tundra of the Russian Empire, has rich resources and science and technology, and a huge domestic market potential is rapidly changing. Based on the abundant energy resources such as oil, gas, and minerals, as foreign trade is active, the huge capital is moving. And commitment the active SOC by improving laws and regulations and changes in the structure of the Russian economy. One of them pushed the WTO since 1993, 19 years to see fruition join the WTO (World Trade Organization). As the official entry into force August 22, Russia, July 10, 2012, Congress passed the treaty after joining the WTO and of the 156th WTO member countries, was officially join. As the WTO, Russia has the world's 11th-largest economy in the steel tariffs from 30% to 15% are exported to Russia, South Korea Car TV parts from 10% to 0%, reduced from 20% to 5% Korean export companies to export to Russia, etc., is expected to become the new land of opportunity. Russia hopes the changes improve the investment environment, the service industry, manufacturing revitalization the macroeconomic sectors of the economy through the WTO, and forecast, but the consumption increased revenue due to tariff cuts, falling import prices and the real economy, and weak manufacturing base. On the one hand, the perspective of concern. In conclusion, Russia joining the WTO, and the feed to improve the fairness and transparency of the market opening, the Russian advance in Korean companies be facilitated and strong complementary cooperation, especially in manufacturing is expected. In this paper, after Russia joining the WTO, trade liberalization, and ready for a new era of economic cooperation between Korea and Russia, at the point of expanding openness to propose strategies to analyze the problems of Korean companies during the Russian advance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.

• The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.13-21
• /
• 2010

Since Korea establish diplomatic ties with China in 1992, korea and China have had rapid progress in most of field as politic, economy, society and culture through basing on cultural commonality and geographical adjacency. Especially, China is the biggest trading partner to korea, and also Korea is third-biggest trading country to China. They become strategic cooperating relation in 2008. Currently, in terms of international trade relation, WTO/DDA negotiation is proceeding in difficulty, but FTA has been growing and extending in the world, and the two country, china and korea, have been competitively trying wide and active FTA negotiation promotion. After Financial crisis in 1997, according to the requirement of local economic cooperation, China has shown the interest to several countries since the conclusion of FTA treaty with ASEAN in 2005. China also makes the active afford to conclude FTA with Korea. Last May 28th, this was mentioned in the meeting between president Lee and Premier Wen Jiabao, so it is anticipated that the negotiation for FTA will be started in the near future. There are many political suggestions and concerns in terms of way of negotiation korea would choose. Some economist said that "'Continuous FTA aimed at long-term protocol should be promoted between korea and China and negotiated includingly'" However, this research claims that commodity exchange, service, and investment areas should be included and it has to be comprehensive package settlement style in negotiation. This research has found out the characteristics of China's negotiation and implications through the China's existed FTA negotiation examples. Currently, China has taken Continuous or a phase-negotiation method to ASEAN, Pakistan, Chile and some other developing country and to advanced countries like New Zealand or Singapore, comprehensive package settlement method is used in FTA negotiation. In consider of the FTA negotiation between Korea and China, Korea has some problems in the commodity change area in agriculture maket's opening. While, for china, the issues would happen in service trade area, especially when encountering finance and communication industries are opened, China's economy could be exposed to some risk. In result, Korea should expand its negotiation range from commodity trade to service trade, in order to exchange both issues, then the negotiation will be concluded more easily. In other word, for FTA, korea should follow comprehensive package settlement way that is similar to New zealand and Singapore case. Through this kind of method, Korea can expect effect of creating trade, conversion of it and preoccupancy of service field in china's market against the advanced countries like Usa, Europe and Japan. Also, to have a successful FTA negotiation, korea should find out china's policy for FTA negotiation. With this information, korea will be able to suggest the way to make a profit. Systematic analysis and comparison about previous negotiation cases of china are needed before the negotiation begin.