• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

기후변화문제는 이미 글로벌 이슈로 부상한 지 오래이지만, 기후변화문제를 각국의 정책으로 이식시키는데 필요한 국제투자법상의 적합한 기준들은 아직 마련되어 있지 않은 실정이다. 최근 ICSID중재에 회부된 Vattenfall v. Germany 사례는 독일 정부의 원전폐쇄 조치에 대한 기후변화 관련 국제투자분쟁의 대표적 사례라고 할 수 있다. 2005년 발효된 교토의정서는 환경오염의 주범인 온실가스를 감소시키는 방안으로 공동이행체제와 청정개발시스템 등의 유연한 메카니즘들을 제안하였다. 교토의정서의 이러한 교토메카니즘들은 이행규칙상, 사적 영역의 투자자들이 각국이 이행하는 교토메카니즘의 규제아래 놓일 수도 있게 함으로써 잠재적으로 투자분쟁의 위험을 지니고 있다고 할 수 있다. 각 국가가 교토메카니즘을 잘 이행하기 위한 배출기준의 더욱 엄격한 규제 등을 한다면 온실가스 감축이라는 글로벌 명제와 상관없이, 정부의 기후변화 조치들조차 수용의 금지라고 하는 국제투자중재의 투자자 보호 원칙들의 잣대 하에 놓일 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 것이다. 수 용의 문제에 있어 이제까지 대부분의 국제투자중재 판정에서 내려진 '침해의 결과(effect-based)'만을 기준으로 적용한다면, 각국 정부들의 배출기준 조정에 대해 투자자들이 자신들의 투자를 유치국 정부가 수용했다고 볼 수 있는 가능성이 생긴다. 투자중재 회부의 두려움으로 인한 각국 정부의 '규제적 위축(regulatory chill)'의 문제도 세계 각국이 기후 변화정책을 강화하는 것을 방해하는 역할을 할 수 있다. 투자 계약상 투자자를 보호하기 위한 정부조치의 '정지조항(stablization clause)'도 투자 유치국의 기후변화 이행과 새로운 입법에 된서리 효과를 가지고 올 것이다. 그리고 현재까지의 투자중재 판정부의 공정하고 공평한 대우 기준(FET)의 적용을 본다면, 교토메카니즘 이전에 탄소 집약적 산업들이 저탄소 운영체제로 가기 위해 투자유치국에 진입할 때, 투자유치국이 적절한 이행을 하는데에 상당한 부담을 줄 수도 있다. 그러므로 Methanex 사건 판정부에서처럼, 수용에 있어서 침해결과만을 볼 것이 아니라, 정부의 규제결정이 의도적으로 외국인 투자자의 투자를 침해할 목적이 아니고 비차별적이며 공공적인 목적이라면 수용의 범주에 포함시키지 않도록 하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 또한 환경법상의 지속가능한 발전의 원칙을 투자조약이나 투자계약에 포함하도록 하는 것을 고려해 볼 수 있다. 덧붙여 이후부터 정부가 투자자-국가 중재 회부 가능성이라는 부담을 벗어나서 환경규제를 이행하기 위해서는 투자자-국가 중재이외의 다른 적절한 분쟁해결 조항을 입안하여 합의하는 것도 고려해 볼만 하다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.217-234
• /
• 2007

동북아시아 국가들은 세계 무역 및 투자에 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있다. 동북아시아 역내 및 역외 국가들과의 경제교류는 앞으로 계속 늘어날 것으로 전망되며, 이로 인한 국제상사분쟁은 국제상사중재 등 ADR에 의해 해결될 수밖에 없을 것이다. 동북아시아에서 ADR 제도가 발전되기 위해서는 무엇보다도 한국의 대한상사중재원, 북한의 조선국제무역중재위원회, 중국의 중국국제경재무역중재위원회, 일본의 일본상사중재협회, 러시아의 러시아상공회의소 부설 국제상사중재법정, 카자흐스탄의 카자흐스탄국제중재기관, 몽골국가중재법정 상호간의 중재 업무 전반에 관한 협력제제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 국제상사중재에 관하여 동북아시아에 새로운 바람이 불고 있다. 경제자유구역 및 남북간 경제교류와 관련한 상사분쟁이 상사중재로 해결될 수 있는 법, 제도적 기반이 마련되었기 때문이다. 지난 해 한국에서는 대한상사중재원 주도하에 무역클레임 센서스가 실시되고 국제중재세미나가 개최되었으며 국제중재규칙이 제정(2007년도 2월 1일 시행 예정)된바 있다. 동북아시아 지역에서 국제상사중재제도가 발전되고 저변이 확대되기 위해서는 중재기관들 간의 협조체제가 구축되어야 할 것이다. 한편 한국도 동북아시아의 중재허브로 성장하기 위해서는 국제금융, M&A 등 중재 영역을 확대하고 경제자유구역 및 남북상사중재 등과 같은 새로운 영역에 대처를 잘 해야 할 것이다. 아울러 정부 당국의 재정적 지원과 행정적 배려도 수반되어야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2021

Recent Discussions on Third-Party Funding (TPF) in the forums of UNCITRAL, ICSID, and ICC are making different levels of progress towards finalizing the rules. However, they also have similarities in dealing with legal issues related to TPF, such as definitions, disclosure, allocation of costs, and security for costs. International treaty tribunals have dealt with TPF issues, too. When it comes to the standing of funded claimants, the tribunal in Ambiente v. Argentina did not accept the argument that claimants were controlled by the TPF provider. Concerning the scope of the disclosure, the tribunal in Tennant v. Canada ordered the disclosure of the TPF arrangement. As for the allocation of costs, the tribunal in Kardassopoulos v. Georgia noted that there is no reason why a TPF agreement should be treated differently than an insurance contract. Regarding the security for costs, the tribunal in South American Silver v. Bolivia considered the mere existence of a third-party funder as not an exclusive factor to determine costs in the earlier stage of the proceedings. Lastly, relating to TPF as a ground for annulment, the tribunal in Teinver v. Argentina declined the respondent's argument that the TPF agreement was the vehicle of fraud.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권4호
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

투자협정상의 MFN 조항을 실체적인 규정 외에 절차적인 규정에까지 적용할 수 있는지에 대한 논의는 보호 범위를 결정하기 때문에 중요한 의의를 가진다. 그러나 투자협정마다 MFN 조항에서 대우의 범위를 조금씩 상이하게 규정하고 있어 이에 대한 해석의 차이가 존재한다. 그러므로 본 연구는 ICSID에서 판정한 중재사례에 초점을 맞추어 국제투자분쟁에서 외국인투자자가 원 투자협정상의 MFN 조항을 통하여 다른 투자협정상에 규정된 분쟁해결절차를 원용할 수 있는지를 분석함으로써 MFN 조항의 적용범위를 획정할 수 있는 기준들을 도출하여 유용한 시사점 및 실무적인 지침을 제시하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.71-89
• /
• 2019

When the host states do not comply with the investor-state arbitral awards voluntarily, it is difficult for the successful claimants to seek the enforcement of arbitral awards against the host state because of the doctrine of state immunity. This raises a question whether the investors might be able to seize the assets of the state-owned enterprises, as well as those of the host states. The investors might consider the properties held by state-owned enterprises as an attractive target especially when it has been established that the host state is responsible for the act of its state-owned enterprise. In such case, the investor might argue that the close relationship between the state-owned enterprise and the host state has already been recognized so that the commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise could be subject to attachment. On the other hand, the host state might argue that the state-owned entity exists separately from the state, and thus its assets cannot be equated with those of the host state. Moreover, even if this argument is not accepted and, as a result, the properties of the state-owned entity is equated with those of the host state, the host state might still be able to argue that non-commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise are immune from execution.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.149-171
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Measures against Risks in International Investment Agreement: focusing on Umbrella Clause and MIGA. Umbrella Clauses have become a regular feature of international investment agreements and have been included to provide additional protection to investors by covering the contractual obligations in investment agreements between host countries and foreign investors. The meaning of umbrella clauses is one of the most controversial issues with which international arbitral tribunals have been recently confronted with while adjudicating investment disputes brought before them MIGA issues guarantees against non-commercial risks for investments, such as: currency transfer restrictions, expropriations, war and civil disturbances and breach of contract by host governments, and the case that the investor obtains an arbitration award or judical decision for damages and is unable to enforce it after a specified period. Furthermore, MIGA undertakes a wide range of mediation activities designed to remove obstacles to the flow of foreign direct investment in its developing member countries.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.45-58
• /
• 2014

It is a well recognised rule in international law that the property of aliens cannot be taken. The question of whether indirect expropriation and government regulatory measures require compensation is an important issue in international investment law. Bilateral investment treaties and other investment agreements contain brief and general indirect expropriation provisions. These focus on the effect of government action and do not address the distinction between compensable and non-compensable regulatory actions. It is generally accepted that a state is not responsible for loss of property or for other economic disadvantages resulting from bona fide general taxation accepted as within the police power of states, provided it is not discriminatory. Yukos Oil Company is a Russian oil and gas company engaged in exploration, refining, and marketing activities. It is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. Yukos Oil Company has its production operations in Russia and markets its products in Europe. An international tribunal ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish investors for the losses they suffered when Russia seized the Yukos Oil Company on July 26, 2012. This has been the subject of several judicial proceedings and academic publications. This paper explores which circumstances do not lead to taxation amounting to expropriation. The author suggests that under the following circumstances, taxation would not amount to expropriation. First, taxation should be non-discriminatory. Also a lawful exercise of the taxation powers of governments would not amount to expropriation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.55-79
• /
• 2013

As arbitration becomes an increasingly popular mode of resolving disputes, neighboring industries begin to take notice. This interest is reflected in the increasing utilization of third party funding in international arbitration claims. In this regard, the third party funding industry appears particularly interested in investor-state arbitration claims because they typically involve considerable claim amounts and substantial legal fees. To examine this trend more closely, this paper, firstly, examines the investor-state arbitration more precisely in Chapter II. In Chapter III, this study continues to examine some legal issues which can arise as a result of a conflict of interest between the parties to the funding agreement including, inter alia, 1) a dispute in which the funder terminates the agreement during the arbitration proceedings, 2) a dispute in relation to a funder's intervention in arbitration proceedings, and 3) a dispute on the responsibility for adverse costs orders, if any. This paper further identifies major legal issues which can arise in relation to 1) disclosure of existence of the funding agreement, 2) attorney-client privilege. Lastly, in Chapter IV, this paper provides some lessons from an in-depth case study on third party funding agreements and solutions to avoid and to solve prospective disputes in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• 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.