• 법제연구
• /
• 제55호
• /
• pp.193-237
• /
• 2018

최근 우리정부를 상대로 제기되고 있는 ISD 소송이 갑자기 증가하면서 소송의 진행상황에 따라 국내적으로 큰 혼란이 초래될 가능성이 크다. 이는 ISD 소송에서 외국인 투자자가 우리나라를 상대로 청구한 손해배상액이 수조원에 이른 경우가 대부분이기 때문이다. 심리가 이미 완료된 '론 스타사건'이나 최근 중재신청을 한 '엘리엇/메이슨 사건'의 소송결과가 나오면 소송의 승패에 따라 국제투자협정에 포함된 ISD 소송제도 자체의 폐기를 주장하는 여론도 분명히 생겨날 것이다. 전 세계적으로 체결되고 있는 대부분의 BIT, FTA에 일반적으로 포함되고 있는 ISD조항은 다수의 투자분쟁사례에서 보여주듯이 우리 정부의 공공정책을 제한하는 요소가 될 수 있다는 점은 분명하다. 하지만 이 제도가 반대로 우리나라의 해외투자자들을 현지국의 위법 부당한 조치로부터 보호할 수 있는 장치라는 점에서 ISD라는 소송제도 자체를 부정적인 시각으로만 볼 필요는 없는 것으로 판단된다. 우리나라는 이미 많은 국가들과 FTA와 BIT를 통해 ISD 소송제도를 허용하고 있고, 또한 새로운 국가들과도 FTA를 체결하기 위한 협상이 진행되는 상황이므로 향후 우리 정부의 공공정책에 대해 외국인 투자자가 ISD 소송절차에 회부할 가능성은 더 크게 증가할 것이다. 우리정부는 ISD 소송에 대비하기 위하여 중앙정부의 소관 부처에 정부 실무가와 민간 학자, 법조인 등 전문가 그룹으로 구성된 대응팀을 발족하여 ISD 소송에서 이슈가 되는 주요 법적 쟁점들을 검토하여 법리를 구축하고, 분쟁이 발생하면 동 대응팀을 가동하여 법리적으로 소송을 지원하고 소송의 증가에 대응할 수 있는 시스템을 갖출 필요가 있다. 특히 국제투자규범과 ISD 제도의 중요성을 인식하지 못하고 있는 지방자치단체 및 각종 공공기관들이 공공정책을 입안하고 시행하는 전 과정이 BIT, FTA 등 국제투자규범에 부합할 수 있도록 관련 정보를 공유하고, 교육함으로써 사전에 ISD 소송을 예방하기 위한 대책을 마련할 필요가 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.93-111
• /
• 2014

In this article, I have reviewed the validity of the Retla Clauses in bills of lading. In Tokio Marine(1970), US courts have permitted carriers to include Retla Clauses in their bills of lading that essentially disclaim all responsibility for the required statement. Simon J in The Saga Explorer(2012) disagreed with the decision of no representation in Tokio Marine and held that the statement with the Retla Clauses made on the bills of lading as to the cargo's apparent condition was a fraudulent misrepresentation. Simon J also requested a strong carriers' honest conduct. However, because the shippers always request the clean bill of lading for trade purpose and never call for a substitute bill of lading showing the true condition of goods, carriers will inevitably continue to clause bills of lading if they have no other better way of protecting themselves in the situation of Tokio Marine or The Saga Explorer. For the present, the decision of misrepresentation in The Saga Explorer might be helpless to change the position of the assignees of the bills of lading. And it seems that the debate on the validity of the Retla Clauses in bills of lading will be continued for the time being. In these circumstances, if the buyers hope to void the potential dispute, they may have a special agreement in the sale of goods contract, for example, requiring a pre-shipment inspection of the goods so as to know the actual condition of the goods on shipment.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권7호
• /
• pp.107-124
• /
• 2020

Purpose - We assess the trade remedies rules in a host of Korea's FTAs to explore the trade policies for the effective implementation of FTA trade remedies rules. Also we develop the strategies of the future FTA negotiations of trade remedies rules. Design/methodology - After we review the key features of FTA trade remedies rules, we examine whether the rules are WTO-consistent or not. Next, we touch upon the WTO-plus characteristics of some provisions. Our main methodology is to compare the trade remedies rules in the numerous Korea's FTAs. Another methodology is to link those rules to the relevant WTO agreements and WTO dispute cases with a view to drawing lessons for trade policies and FTA negotiations. Findings - We find that most of the trade remedies rules are WTO-consistent. Moreover, we find that notification and consultation requirment, mandatory lesser duty rule, explicit prohibition of zeroing method, and public interest clause are WTO-plus. We also find that there are limitiations in the application of some global safeguard exclusion rules because of their non-mandatory nature. Originality/value - While most of previous studies focus mainly on the unique aspects of specific FTAs, our study analyzes comprehensively the trade remedies rules in the various Korea's FTAs. Based on the comprehensive analysis, we figure out the areas to be clarified and improved for the effective implementation of FTAs and the strategies for the future FTA trade remedies negotiations. As a consequence, our paper is expected to contribute to the academic research on FTA policies as well as the national economy.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권1호
• /
• pp.25-45
• /
• 2018

복수의 국가 및 당사자간에 계약 방식이 복잡하고 다양화되면서 양당사자뿐만 아니라 수인의 당사자들이 중재에 참여하기 때문에 국제상사분쟁에서 다수당사자중재의 필요성이 제기되었다. 다행히 당사자의 합의에 기초한 중재가 국제분쟁해결수단으로서 활용되고 있으므로, 다수당사자 분쟁에서 다수당사자간의 합의를 기반으로 한 중재절차의 병합의 중요성이 높아지고 있다. ICC의 중재규칙 뿐만 아니라 우리나라 대한상사중재원의 국제중재규칙의 개정과 함께, 국제상사중재에서 다수당사자분쟁을 신속하고 효율적으로 해결하기 위한 방안인 중재병합의 적용과 그 집행상의 쟁점을 고찰해 보고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제38권1호
• /
• pp.81-87
• /
• 2014

국제 유가의 상승과 해양에너지 개발에 필요한 기술이 진보됨에 따라 시추선(drillship), 부유식 원유생산저장설비(FPSO) 등과 같은 해양플랜트의 수요가 꾸준히 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 더불어 이러한 해양에너지 개발사업이 원활하게 이행될 수 있도록 작업을 지원해주는 다양한 종류의 해양플랜트 지원선박과 관련된 건조, 매매, 용선 시장 역시 꾸준한 성장세를 유지하고 있다. 하지만, 국내의 경우 해양플랜트 지원선박과 관련된 정기용선계약 체결 건수가 전무하기 때문에 향후 이와 관련된 선박의 매매 또는 용선계약 시 발생할 수 있는 다양한 법적 분쟁과 준거법 적용에 대한 실무적인 연구가 적극적으로 진행될 필요가 있다. 따라서 이 논문은 "SUPPLYTIME 2005"라고 통칭되고 있는 해양플랜트 지원선박용 정기용선계약서식을 중심으로 기존의 정기용선계약과 다른 특징을 개요적으로 검토함과 동시에 당사자 간에 발생할 수 있는 법적 분쟁에 대한 준거법 지정과 중재의 적용에 대한 실무적인 내용과 절차에 대해 살펴보고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.243-279
• /
• 2004

The construction arbitration field has developed considerably since the latter half of the 1990s. Through analysis of construction arbitration cases taken up by KCAB, this paper intends to show the present condition and the improvement direction of construction arbitration in Korea. The number of construction arbitration cases filed at KCAB has been increasing rapidly after 1997, but recently the rate of increase has tended to decline. From 2000 to 2003 the number of arbitration cases increased 23％ each year, on average, but in 2003 the increase was only 7.6％. In the very beginning, public construction claims made up the majority of all construction cases, however, civil construction claims are increasing gradually. The arbitration amount in the construction field is very high, owing to public construction claims. For example, the arbitration amount per case was 5 billion won, on average,. in the public construction field. It is shown that the claimants of arbitration are mostly constructors and the main reasons for making claims are to demand payment for construction and payment for additional work. KCAB investigated the performance status of arbitration awards. The voluntary performance rate for awards in construction arbitration is nearly 80％ and in 11％, a suit was filed to appeal the arbitration award. In spite of the development of construction arbitration, some improvements are requested. There have been arguments about the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreement in the General Terms of Construction Contract. This has caused a decrease in arbitration cases, so improvements in this dispute settlement clause need to be made. Enforcement of arbitration awards is granted by the judgment of a court. Resulting from this, appeals for arbitration awards are not allowed, however, up to three appeals for the enforcement of awards are allowed in court. As such, the enforcement system for arbitration awards needs to be improved and simplified.