• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.77-100
• /
• 2019

Third-party funding in international and domestic disputes is a fast-growing trend and it is increasingly used by large, solvent companies that simply wish to share risk in their finance. On January 10, 2017, the Civil Law Amendment Bill was passed in Singapore and on June 2017 an "Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) Bill" in Hong-Kong had a third-party funding to finance the international arbitration and other dispute resolutions expressly approved. This arbitral tribunal's expanding discretion over critical interim measure of security cost was in issue. In Essar v. Norscot (2016), the arbitrator found that the additional third-party funding costs were recoverable as "other costs of the parties." In here, the decision showed the issue of a tribunal's power over cost measures could spread out to be reviewed and broadened through the legislative process. A recent investor-state arbitration case of ICSID, RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, covered the express awarding of security for costs where a claimant was funded by a third-party funder. It seems inevitable that the volume of third-party funding industry will grow more as time goes on. The next step would be to formulate guidelines on how to determine criteria against which an application for security for costs is measured.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.29-53
• /
• 2013

Chinese ISD has been changed a lot since the reformation policy in 1978 and it is expected that China will present a changed attitude toward its advantage as its industrialization continues to advance. This study generally examines the ISD in BIT and also considers not only the attitude of China with regard to ISD but also the changes on the Chinese side. Moreover, this study determines the areas on which the Chinese government focuses. In order to conduct this study, the author attempts to classify the attitudes on ISD into chronical change and treaty powers based on the analysis of BIT. In addition, the paper examines the main contents of ISD in BIT which previously involved an agreement such as arbitral institution, arbitral range, counter-measures of local country, standard for admitting the nationality of corporate investors, and recognition and enforcement of arbitral award. Based on analysis, this paper mentions matters that require attention and caution in the Korea-China FTA as regards investment negotiation, and also suggests instructions for investors who may face dispute with the Chinese government.

• 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.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.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.

• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

Whether an investor can invoke a dispute settlement procedure stipulated in other BIT based on the MFN clause in the original BIT is an important issue. There is a difference in the interpretation of MFN clause in which the scope of the treatment stipulates the slightly different contents for each investment treaty. Therefore, this study considered ICSID arbitration cases related to the applicability of MFN clause for investment dispute settlement provisions. There are two different approaches for the applicability of MFN clause by arbitral tribunals. At first, the expanded interpretation of the MFN clause can be applied to procedural regulations, in that the purpose of the investment treaty is to protect foreign investors and to ensure their status. So, foreign investors can invoke a BIT of a third country that is advantageous to them. Second, the limited interpretation of the MFN clause can not be applied to procedural regulations. Without explicit regulation, the term treatment can not be considered to include dispute resolution provisions. And the BIT that the host state has concluded with third country is a treaty that applies only to the contracting party, so it can not be used by foreign investors of other nationality. Therefore, this study suggests concretely stipulating the scope of MFN clause under the investment treaty, highlighting that certain restrictions should be applied to the MFN clause. Furthermore, it is required continually investigating and analyzing the database of the scope of MFN clause.

• 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.