Korea Trade Review (무역학회지)

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Response to a Shift toward "Assertive" Global Trade Environment: Focusing on EU's Proposed Anti-Coercion Instrument

'공세적' 국제통상환경으로의 변화와 그 대응 : EU의 경제적 위협 대응조치 규칙안을 중심으로

  • 김경화 (건국대학교 국제무역학과)
  • Received : 2023.07.30
  • Accepted : 2023.08.17
  • Published : 2023.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The increase in assertive and unilateral measures represents a key feature of the recent global trade environment. Against this backdrop, the EU is pushing to introduce the so-called "anti-coercion instrument(the instrument)," which aims to allow unilateral countermeasures in the event of economic coercion or threats from third countries. This paper examines the recent assertive trade environment and the legislative background of the instrument. It evaluated the necessity of and concerns arising from the instrument by comparing the existing EU trade policy, i.e., Trade Barrier Regulation (TBR). In addition, the paper aims to analyze the permissibility of the instrument under the WTO system, especially in the context of the principle of "strengthening of the multilateral system." Finally, the paper draws implications of the instrument in terms of our domestic policies that can effectively address economic threats or trade friction in the growing geopolitical crisis.

공세적이고 일방주의적 조치의 증가는 최근 국제통상환경의 대표적인 특징이다. EU는 이러한 환경에 대처하기 위해 제3국의 경제적 위협 시 독자적인 대응조치 허용을 골자로 하는 '경제적 위협 대응조치 규칙안' 도입을 추진하고 있다. 본 고는 규칙안의 입법 배경인 최근 공세적 통상환경의 특징을 살펴보고 기존 EU의 통상정책과의 연계 및 발전 맥락에서 동 규칙안의 필요성 및 우려의 측면을 평가하였다. 또한 타국의 경제적 위협에 대해 독자적으로 대처하고자 하는 시도가 국제적으로 확산되고 있는바, EU의 경제적 위협 대응조치 규칙안의 WTO 체제하에서의 허용 가능성을 검토하였다. 마지막으로 점증하는 지정학적 위기 속에서 우려되는 경제적 위협과 통상마찰에 대한 우리의 국내적 대응 방안 측면에서 동 규칙안의 시사점을 도출하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Azaria, D. (2022), "Trade countermeasures for breaches of international law outside the WTO," International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.71 No.2, pp.389-423. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000057
  2. Bronckers, M. and Gruni, G. (2021), "Retooling the sustainability standards in EU Free Trade Agreements," Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.24 No.1, pp.25-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgab007
  3. Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament, "Opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union and its Member States from economic coercion by third countries (COM(2021)0775 - C9-0458/2021 - 2021/0406(COD)), 28 July 2022, p.5.
  4. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 of 17 September 1984 on the strengthening of the common commercial policy with regard in particular to protection against illicit commercial practices, OJ L 252/1.
  5. Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, OJ L 349/71.
  6. European Parliament and the Council,, 'Regulation (EU) 2021/167 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 February 2021 amending Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the exercise of the Union's rights for the application and enforcement of international trade rules', Official Journal of the European Union, L49/1.
  7. European Parliament, Provisional Agreement Resulting From Interinstitutional Negotiation, Subject: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union and its Member States from economic coercion by third countries, (COM(2021)0775-C9-0458/2021-2021/0406(COD)), June 21, 2023.
  8. Marceau, G. and Wyatt, J. (2010), "Dispute settlement regimes intermingled: regional trade agreements and the WTO," Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol.1 No.1, pp.67-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idp009
  9. Marcin Szczepanski(2022.3.10.), 'Proposed anti-coercion instrument,' 「European Parliamentary Research Service」.
  10. Joint Declaration of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament on an instrument to deter and counteract coercive actions by third countries, (2021/C 49/01), February 12, 2021, Official Journal of the European Union.
  11. Wu, C. H. (2023). The EU's Proposed Anti-coercion Instrument: Legality and Effectiveness. Journal of World Trade, 57(2), 297-316
  12. Van Bergeijk, Peter AG. "Introduction to the Research Handbook on Economic Sanctions." In Research Handbook on Economic Sanctions. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.
  13. 권한용(2006), "유럽연합 (EU) 의 통상장벽규칙 (TBR) 과 한국에의 시사점," 「국제경제법연구」, 제4권, pp.1-36.
  14. 김경숙.홍건식(2023), "히로시마 G7 정상회의 결과와 시사점," 「국가안보전략연구원 이슈브리프」, 439호.
  15. 김대순, 「국제법론」, 제21판(삼영사, 2022).
  16. 김대원(2019), "2015년 EU 통상장벽규칙(TBR)과 국제통상규범:'통상장벽'과 '부정적 효과' 요건을 중심으로," 「강원법학」, 제56권, pp.75-102. https://doi.org/10.18215/kwlr.2019.56..75
  17. 박언경(2021), "국제통상분쟁에서 안보예외조항의 법적 쟁점과 과제-러시아-통과운송 사건을 중심으로," 「EU 연구」, 제58권, pp.55-90.
  18. 안덕근(2007), "EU의 대북미 통상전략 분석," 「KIEP 중장기통상전략연구」 07-09-01.
  19. 유지영(2023), "'경제적 강압'에 관한 국제 논의 비교.분석," 「경제안보리뷰」 23-14호.
  20. 이원석.민지윤(2021), "중국, "반(反) 외국제재법" 통과 및 시행," 「KITA 통상이슈브리프」 제7권.
  21. 최승환(1992), "經濟的 強制로서의 輸出規制의 合法性," 「국제법학회논총」, 제37권 제2호, pp.229-255.
  22. 최승환(1996), "WTO 체제상 일방적 보복조치의 합법성," 「서울국제법연구」, 제3권 제1호, pp.75-111.