• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.13 no.12
• /
• pp.702-714
• /
• 2013

South Korea, China and Japan is struggling for a new economic growth and facing new challenges and difficulties in foreign investment. In this paper, I Studied on the Legal System and Limits or Rules on the Investment Between Korea, China and Japan. First, FTA between Korea, Chin. The trade and economic relations and the investment flows between the three countries were examined. Based on the background of the three countries, it has been studied on the Legal System and Rules in the foreign investment Between Korea, China and Japan. Based on this, and the following were examined. What are the major limits in the foreign investment Between Korea, China and Japan? In the future, what should be included on the FTA investment chapter in FTA between Korea, China and Japan in order to facilitate more investment? FTA between Korea, China and Japan would be an effective means to strengthen the protection of investors and investment facilitation, and investment flows between the three countries will be activated. In the future, FTA between Korea, China and Japan is expected to further promote investment among the three countries. In this regard, in the future, the FTA investment chapter in FTA between Korea, China and Japan should include NT(National Treatment), MFN(Most-Favoured-Nation (Treatment)), Prohibition of the implementation of specific measures, the nationality requirements of management or the board of directors, movement of funds, safeguard measures, expropriation and compensation, compensation for loss, fair and equitable treatment, the settlement of disputes between foreign investors and investment promotion country(Investor-State Dispute Settlement), and other agreement between the three countries.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.185-226
• /
• 2015

As in some developing countries and more recently some developed countries worldwide and in the Asian region, Australia has faced significant internal opposition and public debate especially over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As outlined in Part II(1), concerns have re-emerged and escalated since the first-ever claim was brought against Australia regarding its tobacco plain packaging legislation, in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia under an old BIT with Hong Kong. However, Australia signed bilateral FTAs with Korea in 2014 and with China in 2015, including ISDS protections, prompting several sets of parliamentary inquiries (Part II(2)). Australia's close trading partner, New Zealand, had already concluded an FTA with China in 2008 that included more expansive ISDS-backed investor protections. In 2015, the New Zealand Parliament has been debating ratification of its own FTA with Korea, with ISDS also now attracting growing scrutiny, as elaborated in Part III below. In both bilateral FTA negotiations, the present Korean government seems to have reverted to a strong preference for concluding investment agreements with extensive ISDS protections, despite public and parliamentary debate around 2011 in the context of ratifying its FTA with the United States. As mentioned briefly in the concluding Part IV, Korea's stance has significant implications for the future trajectory of treaty-based ISDS - and indeed international arbitration more generally - in the Asia-Pacific region, and perhaps even globally.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2008

At its thirty-ninth session(New York, 19 June - 7 July 2006), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(hereinafter referred to as the Commission) agreed to give priority to the topic of revising the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. From the forty-fifth through the forty-seventh session, the Working Group checked various issues based on the draft revised version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules prepared by the Secretariat. At its forty-eighth session, the Working Group is going to finish its first reading of articles 38 to 41 of the draft revised version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and to commence its second reading of the draft revised version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Korea is keen on enticing foreign direct investment into its territory. From the 1960s, Korea has concluded more than 80 BITs. Korea is making efforts to conclude FTAs with its trading partners. As of January, 2008, 3 FTAs have taken into effect with respect to Korea. According to provisions on dispute settlement found in such BITs and FTAs involving Korea, the Rules can be chosen for Investor-State Arbitration. Furthermore, the Rules is followed by the arbitration rules for domestic and international arbitrations administered by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. If the Commission adopts the revised version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the Rules will be able to give impact on the arbitration law and practice around the world of arbitration. That is the reason why we should keep attention to the development of the deliberations of the Working Group.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor's alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor's investment.

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