• 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.

• 정보화사회
• /
• s.121
• /
• pp.57-61
• /
• 1998

서비스에 대한 국제무역이 상당히 활발하다. 이것은 세계경제 자체가 옛날의 산업사회에서 고도산업사회로 넘어가고, 외국인 투자가 활발하게 이루어지고 있기 때문에 서비스에 관한 국가간의 거래에 대한 룰을 만들어서 물에 따라서 국제계획이 활발하게 되고 분쟁이 있는 경우에 일방적으로 한 국가가 독점하지 않고, 모든 국가가 의뢰할 수 있는 분쟁해결장치를 만들자는 의도를 가지고 시작된 것이 우루과이라운드 협상이었고, 그 가운데 서비스 협정이 만들어진 것이다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.61-78
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to clarify the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Although most international investment treaties prescribe fair and equitable treatment that is the obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment to foreign investor, there is no clear definition and specific elements of fair and equitable treatment. Through the arbitral award cases we can find that tribunals have interpreted to include six principles; Due process & Protection from denial of justice, Good faith, Reasonableness & Nondiscrimination, Compliance with contractual obligation, Full protection and security, Transparency & Protection of the investor's legitimate expectations. This study suggest that host countries and investors focus on international trends concerning investment disputes in order to avoid future disputes. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.195-216
• /
• 2016

In determining the content of the FET standard, the tribunals stated protection of investor's legitimate expectations, due process and denial of justice, transparency, discrimination and arbitrariness, good faith, etc. The most major elements of the FET standard is the protection of the investor's legitimate and reasonable expectations. It is necessary to consider whether it is possible to what the expectations of investors are protected as legitimate and it is formed under any circumstances. If host state frustrate investor's legitimate expectations, it found a breach of the FET. The host state's specific assurance may reinforce investor's expectations, but such explicit statement is not always necessary. The host state must preserve a stable environment for investments. However, It must not be understood as the inalterability of the host state's legal framework. It implies that the host state's subsequent changes should be made consistently and predictably. The host state is entitled to exercise a reasonable regulatory authority to respond to changing circumstances in the public purpose. Therefore, whether the violation FET shall be determined through a balanced against the investor's legitimate expectations and the host state's reasonable regulatory exercise in the public interest. And investor should keep in mind that the principle of proportionality is applied unless host state provides stabilization clause or similar commitments to investor. Also host state should establish the basis of an argument about reasonable regulatory authority for public interest.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 2015

Central Asian Countries had been independent in 1991 from USSR. Since then it have been increasing foreign trade and investment amount with outside countries including China, Japan, EU and South Korea. Korean enterprises and entities have endeavored to secure plentiful natural resources, oil and gas energy and expand the market share to exporting the consuming and industrial competitive goods and services for those countries. In the case of disputes of commercial transactions and investment, arbitration is regarded as a dispute resolution system which has been preferred in international transactions and investments by the business world. Since the collapse of the USSR, Central Asian Countries have worked to modernize its arbitration law and procedure to conform with international standard rules. Arbitral legislation in Central Asian countries is based on the Model Law as adopted in 1985. However, CIS's legislation systems of arbitration are not satisfied with the international standard in national laws and practices. That is the reason to consider for the specific parliament about arbitration for the dispute resolutions in the commercial transaction and investment between Korean enterprises and CIS. In this article, it is discuss problems and its alternatives in the dispute resolution about the commercial transaction and investment into Central Asian countries including the tendency to the increasing the trade volumes of goods and investment between South Korea and CIS. According to this article, South Korea consider the long term strategy followed the preferred economic relative partnership for business success on commercial transaction and investment with the Central Asian Countries.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.409-431
• /
• 2012

This article deals with the nature of ISDS along with the admissibility thereof, for the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states. ICSID as an organization of World Bank Group, has been established in 1966 and as of May in 2011, 157 nations ratified its convention. As for the Republic of Korea(ROK) it has been involved in the problematic situation with regard to ISDS of the KORUS FTA in negotiation with the United States. The ruling Grand National Party is pushing the FTA for ratification including ISDS. However, the opposition party, the Unified Democratic Party rejected the ISDS with a view to a toxin infringing on its judiciary sovereignty. The ROK has invested in the US 3.5 times more than the US did in Korea up to now. As a result, it seems that the ROK is more concerned about ISDS than the US is, considering that exhausting local remedy through the US local courts, applying even a municipal ordinance in their decisions which will be unsatisfactory toward the ROK side. The ROK is now struggling with the ISDS as a political issue between the ruling party and the opposition party mostly based on sovereignty with a reference on AUSFTA which excluded the ISDS. Australian model about ISDS has been impacted by the experience from the NAFTA which allowes direct claims against each other(the US against Canada and Canada against the US). It seems not to be much sympathy for developed countries because it has long been held to standards for pressing on developing countries. Australia is also struggling with ISDS from the political point of view likewise the ROK. And the ISDS is destined to the political situations established within the domestic countries among the political parties in relation with the acceptance or rejection of thereof.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.65-86
• /
• 2015

Under current international investment law clear criteria to determine standards of indirect expropriation are absent. Arbitral tribunals determine on a case-by-case whether an indirect expropriation has occurred by conducting a fact-based inquiry. However, three common determination standards can be inferred by analyzing prior arbitration cases. The appropriate analytical framework that can be applied to determine whether a state's measure constitutes an indirect expropriation is as follows. i) the degree of economic invasion of the state's action into the foreign investor's property rights and durability of the period, ii) interference with the foreign investor's distinct and reasonable investment-backed expectations, and iii) the nature, purpose and character of the state's measure. Therefore, it is necessary to fully acknowledge and to utilize strategically this determination standard. However, derived standards cannot be applied to all disputes en masse. So, it is desirable to exclude ambiguity and to clearly define the determination standard of indirect expropriation in investment agreements, since arbitral tribunals can apply different determination standards on a case-by-case basis. And, based on the discussions until now, more developed standards and direction in response to demand should be established through consistent analysis and review of precedents related to indirect expropriation. Lastly, This study is expected to be a useful guideline to prepare a necessary countermeasure to prevent dispute related to indirect expropriation beforehand or in case of dispute occurrence.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.27-44
• /
• 2024

The lack of consistency and predictability of arbitral awards in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement ("ISDS") mechanism has long been a subject of criticism. In international investment disputes, arbitral tribunals have frequently come up with different interpretations and results on similar investment agreement provisions. The arbitral tribunal's inconsistent decisions raised concerns not only among the parties to the investment dispute but also amongthe arbitral tribunals in other cases, which ultimately led to legal inconsistencies in international investment law. Arbitration awards may have some degree of disagreement in interpretation. However, the systemic inconsistencies that pervade ISDS risk undermining the purpose of the investment agreement system, which is to provide a predictable and stable framework to protect andpromote foreign investment while maintaining a balance with host state regulations. Therefore, this study proposes a plan to resolve this discrepancy and review standards for practical application. Reform of the ISDS mechanism could be a viable option to reduce, to some extent, the inconsistencies in interpretation, if not completely eliminate them. Reforms such as establishingguidelines, promoting cooperation between arbitral tribunals, and codifying the norms of the agreement can provide a means of reducing interpretive inconsistencies and strengthening the legitimacy of the ISDS mechanism. Reforming the ISDS mechanism will require all stakeholders to carefully consider the issues and the scope, nature, and feasibility of eachpotential reform.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2009

South Korea has investment agreements such as FTAs, BITs with several countries. Up to now, no single case has been registered against the Korean government on breach of investment agreements, but it is likely that the number of such cases would increase. Therefore, an investor-state dispute settlement system, an arbitral procedure by which a foreign investor may seek compensation of damage against the host country, is gaining its importance. The provision of the ISDS has been one of the hottest issues in Korea while the Kor-US FTA was being signed. In this respect, with the growing number of regional agreements such as BITs and FTAs, a careful scrutiny on the ISDS is necessary for Korea. I have therefore studied theoretically subjects including the National Treatment(NT), the Most-Favored Nation(MFN), Fair and Equitable Treatment and Expropriation - those that have been the objects of protection on investors. And I have analyzed ICSID arbitral awards and provided implications. In the ICSID arbitral awards, the Fair and Equitable Treatment turned out to be the most recognized violation on investors by the host State in terms of investor protection. On the other hand, Indirect Expropriation - a matter of which public anxiety was shown led by civic groups - was not generally recognized in arbitral awards. This study is written for sake of governments, local autonomous entities and public enterprises that are in charge of FTAs and BITs.