• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제59권
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2013

The interpretation and application of investment treaties takes place mostly by ad hoc tribunals. Their composition varies from case to case. But in interpreting and applying investment treaties are bound to exist on a ground rule and coherent criteria. Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. When interpreting investment treaties, (i) most tribunals is based on Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, (ii) tribunals rely on previous decisions, (iii) tribunals resort to travaux pr$\acute{e}$paratoires, (iv) tribunals consider the interpretative statement. When applying investment treaties, (i) treaties apply only in relation to acts or events that occurred after their entry into force, (ii) tribunals have applied different inter-temporal rules to jurisdictional clauses and substantive provisions in treaties, (iii) the relevant date for purposes of jurisdiction is the date of the institution of proceedings, (iv) Under the ICSID convention, the host state and investor's nationality must be a party to the convention on the date the proceedings are instituted. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in the interpretation and application standards of investment treaties. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• 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
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability for the space damage and the settlement of the dispute with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of Korea. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the space activity as follows: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties have come into force. Korea has ratified above four treaties except the Moon Treaty. Korea has enacted three national legislations relating to space development as follows: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, the national tort liability for damage by space launching object, the national measures for dispute prevention and international consultation in the exploration and use of outer space, the joint resolution of practical questions by international inter-governmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the problem in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the problem in respect of the efficiency of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. The 1998 Final Draft Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Space Activities of 1998 by ILA regulates the binding procedure and non-binding settlement procedure for the disputes in respect of space activity. The non-binding procedure regulates the negotiation or the peaceful means and compromise for dispute settlement. The binding procedure regulates the choice of a means among the following means: International Space Law Court if it will be established, International Court of Justice, and Arbitration Court. The above final Draft Convention by ILA will be a model for the innovative development in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes with reference to space activity and will be useful for establishing the frame of practicable dispute settlement. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and dispute settlement, and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제28권6호
• /
• pp.1761-1771
• /
• 2016

In respect of the existing relation between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor, Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal has applied 'Ordinary Practice of Seamen' that is regulated by the article No. 2 of COLREG. That is, general navigation rule is not applied between the two vessels, and the action to avoid collision of vessels by utilizing experience knowledge of the seamen. However, the content of the Ordinary Practice of Seamen included in the revised plan in the process of 2011 "Maritime affairs Safety Act" revision was deleted in the screening of the Office of Legislation due to the reason that it could not specified when the content of deed is not concertized. Furthermore, prior application regulation of international treaty included in the existing "Sea Traffic Safety Act"(Article 5) was deleted in the screening of the National Assembly. So, doubt about whether the Ordinary Practice of Seamen could be continuously applied according to the regulation of the international treaty, nevertheless not specified in domestic law, has been continuously raised. In this situation, recently Central Maritime Safety Tribunal changed precedent by applying of Article 96(3) of Maritime Safety Act without applying Ordinary Practice of Seamen in the Case No. 2015-001. Accordingly, this study intended to review propriety of precedent change and legal issue with the decision of Central Maritime Safety Tribunal excluding Ordinary Practice of Seamen for a collision between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

현재 우주활동에 의하여 발생된 손해에 대한 배상책임과 관련된 국제조약으로 1967년 우주조약과 1972년 우주손해배상책임조약이 있으며, 또한 우리나라 국내법으로 2008년 우주손해배상법이 있다. 우주조약은 우주활동에 대한 국가의 국제적 책임과 우주물체에 의한 손해에 대한 국가의 불법행위 책임에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주손해책임조약은 발사국의 절대적 책임, 과실책임, 연대책임, 배상청구권자, 배상청구방법, 배상청구기한, 배상청구와 국내적 구제, 손해배상액, 청구위원회 설치 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우리나라 우주손해배상법은 우주손해의 정의, 우주손해책임조약과의 관계, 발사자의 무과실책임 및 책임의 집중, 발사자의 손해배상책임한도액, 발사자의 책임보험 가입, 정부의 피해자 구조 및 발사자 지원 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주사고로 인한 손해배상책임 관련 사례들로 Iridium33과 Cosmos 2251 위성충돌 사건, Cosmos 954 위성추락 사건, Martin Marietta의 위성발사 실패 사건, Westar VI 위성 작동불량 사고 등이 있으며, 이러한 우주사건에 관한 분쟁 또는 소송에 있어서 위성의 발사국, 발사자 및 제조자의 손해배상책임 부담문제에 관련하여 절대책임(엄격책임)원칙 또는 과실책임원칙이 적용되어 해결되고 있다. 우주손해책임조약의 개선방안으로 손해배상청구권자의 명확한 규정, 청구위원회의 결정의 구속력 확보 등을 들 수 있고, 우리나라 우주손해배상법의 개선방안으로 손해배상범위에 간접손해 포함, 손해배상책임 한도액의 통화단위 변경, 공동발사자의 연대책임 및 구상권 신설, 우주손해배상심의위원회의 설치 등을 들 수 있다. 우리나라는 2009년 6월 전남 고흥군 외나로도에 우주센터가 준공되어 동년 8월 및 2010년 6월 우리나라 최초 소형 우주발사체 나로호(KSLV-1)를 두차례 발사하였다. 향후 우리나라는 우주활동 과정에서 우주관련 국제조약 및 국내법상의 국제적 책임 및 우주손해에 대한 배상책임 등 문제들이 발생할 가능성이 있으므로 우리정부 및 우주물체 발사기관은 이러한 문제들에 대한 법적 제도적 대응책을 마련해야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.589-616
• /
• 2016

The reviewing of an analysis of the Korea-China FTA due to guidance introduced for the new regulations or exceptional regulations compared to the KORUS, Korea-EU, Korea-ASEAN FTA. Commodity sectors in the Korea-China FTA and the KORUS, Korea-EU, Korea-ASEAN FTA(the majority in the country and trade criteria analysis result) compared and analyzed the results, rules of origin and the customs clearance procedures of origin, preferential tariff rate of origin and the origin preferential specific rules are somewhat difference, but customs and trade facilitation regulations are already quite consistent with the Korea customs system. Relatively important research results were as follows. First, the calculation of the regional value content in KORCHINA FTA is that I'm to use the deduction method can comprehensively reflect a regional value ratio, with respect to the materials acquired originating status as the FTA in the US and EU use the product non it's not to consider the value of the originating materials originating materials can be utilized for intermediate goods. Second, even if a non-treaty country in the middle with the exception of direct transport rules, and acknowledge the country of origin are under customs control, there are provisions for the period are temporarily stored in a non-treaty countries separately, that period goods imported into the non-treaty countries and up to three months from the day. If the situation of the occurrence of force majeure be greater than three months, but has so exceed six months. Third, the materials acquired originating status in the Korea-China FTA not to consider the value of non-originating materials used in its products as the KORUS FTA and Korea-EU FTA, that can be utilized originating materials for intermediate goods. It is expected that higher utilization of rules of origin. Meanwhile, Korea-China FTA has provisions to allow requests for preferential tariff applied on imports Customs declaration of intention to apply pre-condition for a preferential tariff applied to the importer. In other words, if the import customs tariff preference when applying post-intention not to advance is to be noted that any preferential treatment to prevent the later application.

• 한국항공우주법학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항공우주법학회 2008년도 제40회 국제학술발표대회
• /
• pp.235-255
• /
• 2008

On the basis of briefing the development of space technology and activity in China, this essay analysis the characteristics and main rules of the space regulations in China, and proposes how to advance and perfect the space law in China further. The beginning of space technology in China can be traced back to 1956. After more than fifty years development phased in three periods of technology preparation, technology experimentation and engineering application, the achievement of space technology and activity in China is noticeable in the world. But the space legislations in China, which is mainly composed as ministerial rules, orders, and regulatory documents, are really lagged far behind the space activity, and can not adapt to the quick and comprehensive development of space activity. Therefore, national space law must be passed in time.