• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.411-437
• /
• 2000

It is unsafe to attempt a complete definition of the expression 'perils of the seas', because in practice the question 'what is a peril of the seas' is inextricably woven up with the further question, 'was the loss proximately caused by the sea peril ?' Such casualties as stranding, collision and heavy weather appear with monotonous regularity in the daily reports, and are the obvious examples. However, what can be included in the term 'perils of the seas' seems to be inexhaustible, although most circumstances appear to have been covered by the Courts. Two cases heard in 1887 were instrumental in defining perils of the seas. In The Xantho Lord Herschell made the following remarks: "The term ... does not cover every accidents or casualty which may happen to the subject matter of insurance on the sea. It must be a peril 'of' the sea. Not every loss or damage of which the sea is the immediate cause is covered by these words. They do not protect, for example, against that natural and inevitable action of the winds and waves which results in what may be described as wear and tear. There must be some casualty, something which could not be foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the adventure. The purpose of the policy is to secure an indemnity against accidents which may happen, not against events which must happen. ... If a vessel strikes upon a sunken rock in fair weather and sinks, this is a loss by perils of the sea."

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.109-131
• /
• 2010

Investment Agreement is to be a part of FTA, as negotiating together both trade and investment. For example, it has a separate chapter about investment in KORUS FTA contract and is more detailed and inclusive than BIT contents which are traditional investment provisions. It is called to the investment norm of FT A. The investment agreement lures a foreign investment by providing the environment which is stable to the foreign investors. Hence, it plans in goal for the economic development of the home country. In international investment, the arbitration award cases are coming out to be divided into two parts applying MFN provisions in investor protective principles and dispute resolution process; the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. In the case of RosInvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation awarded in 2007, the arbitration tribunal interprets that the application scope of MFN provisions contain the more lucrative dispute provision than other BITs without limitations in entity right of the investor. This judgment is the same view as arbitration tribunal position of Maffezini case. The arbitration tribunal of Plama case has kept out an assertion magnifying the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction. That is, for applying more inclusive investor-nation resolution method from different treaty, tribunal mentioned that MFN provision had to see clearly a point of applying the investor-nation dispute resolution method. Dispute resolution process providing inclusive MFN provision has both the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. It needs ceaselessly to do the monitoring about cases of arbitration award. In conclusion, the point where MFN provisions are applied conclusively is recognized, but it is still controversial whether or not to magnify the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal applying MFN provisions. Therefore, it does not exist clear principle in the theory or in the award eases about the application scope for entity protection provision of MFN. Hence, The Korean government of Korea and local autonomous entities needs to keep their eyes on the trend of the international arbitration award cases in relation to the investment dispute for the future. Also, Korean government or local self-governing group must consider MFN provisions when they make a contract of international investment treaty such as writing concretely the application of MFN provisions from KORUS FTA.