• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권4호
• /
• pp.169-188
• /
• 2023

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.

• 한국정보통신학회논문지
• /
• 제20권8호
• /
• pp.1596-1606
• /
• 2016

오늘날 해양은 세계경제를 견인하는 무역의 통로일 뿐만 아니라, 국가를 부강하게 하는 각종 자원의 보고이기도 하다. 최신과학기술의 발전으로 인류의 활동역시 육지에서 해양으로 점점 확대되고 있다. 근래 동아시아 국가들 역시 이러한 해양의 가치를 인식하고 해양에서의 자국의 권익을 경쟁적으로 추구하고 있다. 이로 인해 아시아 해역에 국가 간 분쟁이 고조되고 있다. 반면에 이러한 해양안보문제를 해결할 국제 안보조직이나 수단은 해결해야할 문제의 크기나 복잡성에 비해 대단히 부족하다. 이를 해결하기 위해서는 아시아 국가들이 냉정하게 현실을 직시하고 지혜를 모아 역내 해양안보문제의 범위와 의제들을 재점검해야 한다. 또한 그동안 시행되었던 제반 안보협력의 과정이나 결과도 재평가하여 현재의 해양안보문제를 효율적으로 관리하고 해결해 나가야 한다. 만약 우리가 이러한 문제들을 성공적으로 해결해 낸다면, 현재와 같이 불안한 아시아의 바다는 '평화와 번영의 바다'로 변화될 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.61-88
• /
• 2018

Myanmar has witnessed rapid economic growth in the 21st century. The cultural heritage of Myanmar (Burma) inherited from ancestors is law literature such as Dhammathat and Rajathat. Burma is a unique country in Southeast Asia in a sense that it already had a modern law system. For example, there has been a legal profession even in 12th century AD. According to Rajathat, lawyers were required to wear a uniform in court. Furthermore, lawyers and Judges participated in legal proceedings from the 15th century. As to the role of Dhammathat, there are conflicting views in the academic community. According to Professor Andrew Huxley, the profound literatures of Dhammathat had played an important role as a source of law in Burmese court in ancient times. Dhammathats have flourished in the struggle among the King, lawyers, and monks in old Burmese society. This customary law combined with Rajathat provided a guidance of legal proceedings in Burmese court, as well as village settlement. This traditional dispute resolution system reaches modern times in the form of Buddhist family law in Myanmar. Nowadays, the law system of Myanmar looks like a legal pluralism since the customary laws of Burma, as well as Shan and Arakan, are effective and co-exist with common law adopted at the colonial period. In recent times, Myanmar has enacted new arbitration laws (2016) in order to attract foreign direct investment.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.89-121
• /
• 2015

Investor-State Dispute Settlement(ISDS) grants a foreign investor the right to access an international arbitrator, if he believes actions taken by a host government are in breach of commitments made in an investment agreement or an investment treaty. The arbitration procedure of ICSID is made specifically to resolve investment disputes, so most of investment disputes have been settled in accordance with the procedure. Owing to limitation of dispute settlements through the ICSID arbitration procedure, several investment dispute conciliation schemes have been emerged as alternatives. In the case of a conciliation, the conciliation procedure will be in progress based on arbitrary agreement between parties, and if both parties agree on a conciliation program, then the arbitrary execution rate is relatively higher than that of arbitration procedures. In addition, it is evaluated that the time duration of conducting a conciliation procedure is in general rather short in 8 to 24months, and its incumbent cost is also rather inexpensive. Most of all, through amicable settlement of a dispute between a foreign investor and a host state, the foreign investor may continue his investment activities without a hitch, while the host state may invite more investment without any risk of losing its external credibility. In conclusion, it is desirable to lead any investment dispute between a foreign investor and a host state settle in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure as specified in the relevant investment agreement. In addition, to make the foreign investor continue his investment activities, it will be necessary to provide a separate investment dispute conciliation system aside from such arbitration procedures to cope any unexpected incident flexibly.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.699-733
• /
• 2000

This article analyzes the state-of-play of WTO dispute settlement for first four and a half years. Remarkable points found on this analysis are as follows: First, the Quad consisting of the United States, the European Community (EC), Canada and Japan has participated in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism more frequently than any other WTO member. Second, among developing country members some leading countries such as Korea, Brazil and India have relied actively upon the mechanism to claim and defend their rights and obligations under the WTO rules. Third, bilateral dispute settlements generally have been preferred to multilateral dispute settlements by the panel or Appellate Body. Fourth, observation of the Appellate Body proceedings well shows WTO members' strategy to use every process available to them. Fifth, the provisions of GATT 1994 have been most frequently invoked by the members. GATS and TRIPS Agreement disputes are mainly involved in developed countries, in particular the U.S. and the EC. Sixth, very high winning ratio in the panel and Appellate Body process indicates that complaining parties review the possibility to get favorable rulings even before referring to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and prepare for the case very thoroughly. Seventh, roughly speaking, disputes were settled within two or three years. Therefore, seeking bilateral dispute settlement can be more advantageous to a complaining party than referring to a panel or an arbitrator because of low costs and short time period in dispute settlement. Finally, the DSB approved retaliatory actions for winning complaining parties against the defending parties who had rejected implementation of its rulings and recommendations. In conclusion, it can be said that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has been operated very successfully for the first four and a half years. It is hoped that continued study on state-of-play of WTO dispute settlement mechanism will be contributory to improved national interest of Korea.

• 산학경영연구
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.439-464
• /
• 1998

컴퓨터와 인터넷의 발달은 전자상거래라는 새로운 거래관행을 창출하였고 기업과 개인들에게 경제활동의 모든 분야에서 매우 커다란 기회를 제공하게 되었다. 이에 따라 전자상거래는 세계무역에서 차지하는 비중이 날로 증대하고 있으며 그 영역도 점차 확대되고 있다. 전자상거래의 과정은 종래의 거래방식으로는 생각지 못했던 방식으로 계약이 체결되고 결제가 이루어지며, 상품이나 서비스가 이동되고 무역거래에 수반되는 각종 절차를 수행하계 된다. 따라서 과거의 법이론 및 사회제도 안에서 예측하지 못했던 많은 문제점들이 표출되었고, 이는 법적 제도적 불안정으로 인한 거래관련당사자들간의 분쟁의 야기 가능성을 의미한다고 할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 전자상거래계약시 발생가능한 법적 제도적 문제 중에서 특히 계약의 성립과 관련된 여러 문제들을 다루어보고 이를 토대로 거래당사자들간에 발생가능한 실무적인 문제들의 해결방안을 몇 가지 제시하여 보았다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제47권5호
• /
• pp.273-288
• /
• 2022

This study first classifies and organizes provisions on institutional arrangements (or IAs) and dispute settlement mechanism(or DSM) in a digital trade agreement. Then it conducts a case study on seven major digital trade agreements: the CPTPP, the USJDTA, the USMCA, the ASDEA, the RCEP, the KSDPA, and the DEPA. And it finally derives implications for Korea to improve implementation of DTAs by communicating better and resolving disputes efficiently with the help of IAs and DSM-related provisions. IAs of a digital trade agreement can be defined as a set of agreements on the division of the respective responsibilities of agencies involved in implementing and enforcing the agreement, including committees, working groups, or contact points. DSM of a digital trade agreement includes consultation, mediation, arbitration, and establishment of a panel. Comparing six FTAs with an e-commerce chapter, the CPTPP, the USMCA, and the RCEP contain the most advanced type of IA provisions while the CPTPP, the USMCA, the RCEP, and the KSDPA have that of DSM provisions. Korea is its initial stage as it has only signed the KSDPA with Singapore as well as it is about to launch a new digital trade negotiation for the DEPA, the CPTPP, and even the IPEF, it is necessary to engage in negotiations with a clearer position on behalf of Korean digital companies. As provisions on IAs and DSM are important policy tools that can reflect industry concerns and convey proposals in inter-governmental dialogue, a Korean draft of the IAs and DSM-related provision should be prepared in advance.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2018

The purposes of this study are as follows: First, this study reviews the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations of the EU to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the future. Second, this study tries to seek out alternative solutions to dispute resolutions based on these regulations. Third, this study increases the efficiency of the transactions by proposing effective and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for international e-commerce. First, this study reviews the concept of cross-border e-commerce, generally explores ODR, and creates comparisons with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Subsequently, this study looks into domestic ODR system and analyzes the regulations of EU ODR. This study suggests the implications of the European ODR regulations in the conclusion. The EU ODR platform is considered greatly significant in that it has increased the possibility of settlements in small disputes by enhancing consumers' accessibility to ADR procedures. Therefore, this thesis proposes a method for Korean companies to resolve disputes that may arise in e-commerce with EU by using the ODR platform. As a result, it is expected to increase the competitiveness of Korean companies in the EU market. Both legislative trends related to the ODR of the EU and establishment of the EU ODR platform have significant implications for Korean businesses in Europe. This study is expected to be useful for our businesses in the EU in reviewing the applicability of the EU ODR regulations and the dispute settlement procedures through the EU ODR platform. In addition, this study is expected to prove useful in relation to consumer protection by enhancing consumers' accessibility to dispute settlement institutions in domestic electronic commerce.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제35권2호
• /
• pp.247-280
• /
• 2020

항공기 부품 교역의 무관세화 및 자유화를 위하여 WTO 민간항공기 교역 협정이 1995년 WTO 출범 시 WTO 설립협정 부속서 4 복수국 간 무역협정으로 별도 체결되었으며, 현재 미국, EU 등 33개국이 가입되어 있으나 우리나라는 가입하지 않고 있다. 민간항공기 교역 협정의 주요 내용은 적용 대상 물품, 관세 및 기타 과징금의 철폐, 무역에 대한 기술장벽에 관한 협정의 적용, 정부에 의한 민간항공기 조달지시의 금지, 수입 또는 수출 수량 제한이나 허가조건의 적용 배제, 보조금 및 상계조치에 관한 협정의 적용, 민간항공기 교역위원회, 본 협정 관련 문제의 협의 및 분쟁해결 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 현행 관세법은 2018년 12월 31일 제89조 제6항이 신설되어 항공기 부품 수입 시 관세감면율이 2019년 5월부터 단계적으로 축소되어 2026년에 관세감면제도가 폐지될 예정이다. 이에 따라서, 민간항공기 교역 협정이 항공산업에 미치는 영향을 살펴보면, 첫째 항공운송산업에 미치는 영향으로서, 항공기 부품 관세감면제도가 폐지되는 2026년부터 국내 항공운송업계의 관세 부담액은 연간 약 1,600억 원에 이를 것으로 전망되는데, 민간항공기 교역 협정에 가입 시 국내 항공운송업계는 항공기 부품을 무관세로 수입할 수 있게 됨으로 3-8%의 수입관세를 부담하지 않아도 될 것이다. 둘째 항공정비(MRO)산업에 미치는 영향으로서, 항공기 부품 관세감면제도가 단계적으로 축소 내지 폐지될 경우 국내 엔진정비와 부품정비 분야에서 해외 외주비가 2018년 기준 12,903억 원에서 더욱 증가할 것으로 예상되는데, 민간항공기 교역 협정에 가입 시 항공정비업계가 항공기 부품을 무관세로 수입할 수 있게 되어 해외 외주비를 절감할 수 있을 것이다. 항공산업의 경쟁력을 확보하기 위한 항공기 부품 교역 자유화 정책 방향을 제시하면, 첫째 FTA를 활용한 관세감면으로서, 항공기 부품 수입 시 FTA를 활용하여 관세감면 혜택을 받기 위하여는 원산지 증명 발급을 거부하고 있는 미국, EU 등의 해외 거래업체로부터 이를 확보하여야 하며, 또한 항공기 부품의 해외 임가공 수입에 대한 관세 감면 규정이 미비한 한-싱가포르 및 한-EU FTA 협정문의 규정을 개정 보완할 필요가 있다고 할 것이다. 둘째 민간항공기 교역 협정의 가입 추진으로서, 전술한 FTA를 활용한 관세감면 방식은 모든 항공기 부품의 원산지 증명 발급이 곤란하며, 또한 해외임가공 물품의 수입 관세 감면 규정이 미비한 한-싱가포르 및 한-EU FTA규정의 개정보완 작업에 진전이 없다는 한계가 있으므로, 항공기 부품 교역의 무관세화를 위하여는 민간항공기 교역 협정의 가입을 추진하는 것이 타당하다고 할 것이다. 셋째 관세법 상 항공기 부품 관세감면제도의 개선으로서, 항공기 부품 교역의 자유화를 위한 민간항공기 교역 협정 가입 시까지는 상당기간의 소요가 예상되므로 관세법 제89조 제6항에 의한 항공기 부품의 관세감면제도가 계속되도록 별도 개선조치가 필요하다고 할 것이다. 결론적으로 우리나라가 WTO 민간항공기 교역 협정에 가입하여 항공기 부품교역에 대한 무관세화와 자유화를 달성함으로써 우리 항공산업이 외국 항공산업과 공정하게 경쟁할 수 있는 환경을 조성하고 경쟁력을 확보할 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.