• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• 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.

• Electronics and Telecommunications Trends
• /
• v.17 no.6 s.78
• /
• pp.89-98
• /
• 2002

현재, 한.미 ROU 협상당시 의도했던 목적은 이미 달성되었다. 우리나라는 WTO 정부조달협정에 가입하여 협정을 준수하고 있으며, WTO 정신에 입각하여 통신장비 조달도 공개, 공정, 비차별 원칙에 따라 운영하고 있다. 양허대상 통신사업자인 한국통신의 경우, 1997년 10월부터 출자전환과 함께 조달시장이 전면 개방됨에 따라 전세계 모든 공급업체에 비차별, 내국민대우를 보장하고 있다. 또한 한.미 ROU에 명시된 바와 같이 한국이 WTO 정부조달협정에 가입함으로서 한.미 ROU에서 배제조건을 충족시키고 있다. 더불어 현재 KT의 정부지분은 100% 민간에 매각되어 완전하게 민영화되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 한.미 ROU는 WTO 정부조달협정으로 대체되거나 종료되지 않고 있어 양허대상인 통신사업자는 한.미 ROU의 본래의 취지와는 달리 경영의 자율성 침해와 조달의 비효율성 증가로 인하여 많은 추가비용을 지불하고 있다. 따라서 본 고는 국내통신사업의 발전과 규제완화라는 측면에서 정부조달협정 중에서 가장 파급효과가 큰 한.미 ROU의 개정협상을 위한 방향을 모색해 보았다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.103-124
• /
• 2012

Because the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea-U.S. FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have an overlapping contracting party, the United States, their provisions have much in common. The investment chapters of these agreements, especially, show many similarities, and thanks to these similarities, it is likely that the Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration tribunal for investor-state disputes regarding the environment will put great weight on the NAFTA tribunals' interpretations of those similar provisions. Since the NAFTA tribunals have already handled many environment-related arbitration cases, their interpretations will help heighten the predictability of environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration cases. This paper analyzes the environment-related NAFTA cases in which the tribunal has issued an award, which are the Metalclad case, S.D. Myers case, Waste Management case, Methanex case, Glamis Gold case, and Chemtura case. According to this analysis, the most controversial NAFTA provisions have been Article 1102 (national treatment), Article 1105 (minimum treatment standard, fair and equitable treatment), and Article 1110 (expropriation). The NAFTA tribunals applied the requirement of these articles in a strict manner, reducing the possibility of finding a violation. After the aforementioned analysis, this paper proceeds to compare the national treatment, minimum treatment standard (fair and equitable treatment), and expropriation provisions of the Korea-U.S. FTA and NAFTA and to predict the impact that the environment-related awards under NAFTA can have on environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA cases. It is expected that the NAFTA interpretations of the national treatment and minimum treatment provisions are likely be used as they are, but not the interpretations of expropriation, because of the differences in the expropriation provisions of the two agreements.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.221-246
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the case on the violation of the Agreement on WTO-TRIMs in the China with auto parts case. The Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures(TRIMs) are rules that apply to the domestic regulations, a country applies to foreign investors, often as part of an industrial policy. The agreement was agreed upon by all members of the WTO. The TRIMs Agreement bans any laws, policies or administrative regulations favouring domestic products. This includes government incentives to encourage corporations to use domestically made products as a way of creating or protecting local jobs. The Agreement on TRIMs is only one such restriction within the broader WTO regime. Policies such as local content requirements and trade balancing rules that have traditionally been used to both promote the interests of domestic industries and combat restrictive business practices are now banned. In many ways the Agreement on WTO-TRIMs is less significant than the WTO agreements on services, etc. The TRIMs Agreement does not involve any new rules or disciplines, referring only to the existing provisions under the GATT. However, by enforcing GATT provisions on 'national treatment', this short and simple agreement has had farreaching effects on auto parts, etc. Meanwhile, China has been members of the WTO late 2001, once the measures imposed high-rate tariff for import parts was intended to regulate importer of auto parts in order to avoid the high-rate tariff.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.95-124
• /
• 2017

The dispute analysed in this article concern eight measures taken by Argentina regarding finance, taxation, foreign exchange, and registration. The dispute centered on whether these measures were in violation of the Member's obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), namely most-favored national treatment, national treatment and market access, and whether they are justified by Article XIV and Article 2(a) of the Annex on Financial Services. Important arguments raised in the dispute include whether the services and the service providers of cooperative and non-cooperative countries and/or Argentina subjected to the measures are like for the purposes of Article II and Article XVII of the GATS, whether the regulatory aspects of the measures are to be considered in determining the inconsistency with Article II and Article XVII of the GATS, and whether the measures are justified in that they were taken in accordance with the national laws and regulations aimed at implementing the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes and the Financial Action Task Force. The essence of this dispute lies in the balance of each Member's right to regulate commercial and/or financial activities and its obligations under the GATS. The Appellate Body tried to strike such a balance in its assessment of: (i) likeness of services and service suppliers, (ii) no less favorable treatment under Articles II and XVII, and (iii) the scope of measures under Article 2(a) of the Annex on Financial Services. This article aims to provide an analysis of the Appellate Body's findings, giving light to the relevant jurisprudence and scholars' writings.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.35-63
• /
• 2019

Since imposing Performance Requirements (PRs) on investors have been conducted as a means to protect a host state's domestic industry in the short run, with its effect on improving the international balance of payments, it has been implemented mostly in developing countries. From the viewpoint of investors, however, PRs hinder free competition and investment activities and have the effect of distorting international trade activities; therefore, they are expected to bring detrimental effects on the host state's economic development in the long run. PRs provided by International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and WTO-TRIMs, too, included many abstract regulations which are grounded on the host state's economic efficiency in the past; however, those PRs are gradually being more concretely specified, shifting to a form of prohibition with the goals of increasing the protection on investors and realizing investment liberalization. Accordingly, when Korea freshly concludes IIAs or revises them afterwards, one should focus more on following the points regarding PRs. First, to protect Korean companies' investment activities, it is advantageous to list the contents of prohibited PRs extensively and concretely and create a stipulation. Second, it is necessary to list the contents of the PRs prohibited and add the phrases for prohibiting "any other similar requirements" explicitly, as well so as to cover the PRs that can appear newly. Third, as in the cases associated with PRs, issuable matters are mostly either the range of applying PRs or the conditions of applying them (relevance or detrimental effects); therefore, it is necessary to classify the cases accumulated by issues and analyze them thoroughly. In conclusion, as this study has analyzed the theoretical characteristics of PRs provided in IIAs and related cases and suggests exquisite theory regarding PRs, it not only lays fundamental grounds for follow-up research but also gives useful and practical guidelines for the parties concerned and the arbitrators according to the ISDS procedure.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.13 no.12
• /
• pp.702-714
• /
• 2013

South Korea, China and Japan is struggling for a new economic growth and facing new challenges and difficulties in foreign investment. In this paper, I Studied on the Legal System and Limits or Rules on the Investment Between Korea, China and Japan. First, FTA between Korea, Chin. The trade and economic relations and the investment flows between the three countries were examined. Based on the background of the three countries, it has been studied on the Legal System and Rules in the foreign investment Between Korea, China and Japan. Based on this, and the following were examined. What are the major limits in the foreign investment Between Korea, China and Japan? In the future, what should be included on the FTA investment chapter in FTA between Korea, China and Japan in order to facilitate more investment? FTA between Korea, China and Japan would be an effective means to strengthen the protection of investors and investment facilitation, and investment flows between the three countries will be activated. In the future, FTA between Korea, China and Japan is expected to further promote investment among the three countries. In this regard, in the future, the FTA investment chapter in FTA between Korea, China and Japan should include NT(National Treatment), MFN(Most-Favoured-Nation (Treatment)), Prohibition of the implementation of specific measures, the nationality requirements of management or the board of directors, movement of funds, safeguard measures, expropriation and compensation, compensation for loss, fair and equitable treatment, the settlement of disputes between foreign investors and investment promotion country(Investor-State Dispute Settlement), and other agreement between the three countries.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.