• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.271-298
• /
• 2011

This paper seeks the proper and efficient operation of Korea's safeguard mechanism by examining the judicial interpretation and application of the safeguard measures under the WTO Safeguard Agreement. The judicial examination is focused on the terms of "unforeseen development" in GAIT XIX, "evaluation of all relevant factors", and "clear justification of measure" in Safeguard Agreement. Such an intensive examination. of the judicial interpretation is used for the comparative analysis of the Korea's domestic provisions to find out problems in operation and the interpretative and legislative responses to them. It is found that the Korea's adaptation of the Safeguard Agreement into the domestic provisions and the operation of such provisions in the practical field have generally been consistent with the WTO's basic principles and provisions. Korea's safeguard mechanisms should stably be operated for securing the proper protection of domestic industry under certain emerging circumstances. For such policy objective to be ensured, it is legislatively required to make additional provisions in line with the appellate body's consistent interpretations of the debating issues including the term of unforeseen development.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.573-600
• /
• 2009

Currently, the Free Trade Agreement(FTA) promoting regionalism or bilateralism has been increasingly concluded, which is against multilateralism of the WTO. The adoption of the TRS under the FTA carries various issues from the rationale of its existence to its contents. To explain these contradictory issues between the WTO and the FTA, this paper studied on the TRS by analyzing present cases and negotiation results of the TRS under the FTA and comparing them under the WTO. The TRS under the WTO agreement is limited only to antidumping, countervailing duties and safeguard as the agreed concept. When the negotiations of the FTA are on the process, it is necessary to adopt the TRS depending on the negotiating party countries of the FTA after considering fully the economic situations of Korea and the need of protection for the domestic industries. Currently, Korea has entered into the FTA with several countries and most of the agreements with respect to the TRS maintain and observe the right and duty in the WTO agreement and when necessary, in some of the FTA agreements, they have changed parts of the TRS. Consequently, it is needed to establish the basis for application of the TRS. Also, additional application of the SSG provision to some sensitive goods is highly recommended.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.117-142
• /
• 2014

China having largest market in the world, has been criticized by its trading partner countries due to its unfair trade practices, particularly in the field of anti-dumping regulation. The main reasons for such criticism seem to come from the incomplete anti-dumping law as instrument to protect the industry concerned. In 2001, though new anti-dumping law was established to replace the former one by revising it to meet the needs for economic development which should be secured for china to take part in the competition world as the new member of WTO. The provisions concerned have been evaluated not to be sufficient and efficient from the viewpoint of the safeguard mechanism, while are required to be modified to meet the real world of international trade law. I consider that as the biggest partner of chinese trade activity, we will need to maintain a well understanding of the Chinese anti-dumping regulations. So this report conducts the Chinese anti-dumping regulations, compares between the chinese regulations and the WTO agreement, and studies deeply in to the problems and the improvements of the Chinese anti-dumping regulations.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.211-226
• /
• 2006

This paper discusses the definition of the term "domestic industry" in relation to the application of the safeguards provisions of the WTO through the judicial interpretation made by the WTO Appellate Body and panel. The requirements for the imposition of safeguards include a rapid increase in import quantity, the existence of serious injury or threat of serious injury to the domestic industry, and a causal relationship between the increase in imports and the industrial injury. The domestic industry refers to the producers that account for a considerable portion of the total national production, or the national producers who produce articles "like" or "directly competitive" with the specific imports. Chronically, there have been controversial disputes relating to the interpretation of the term "like" or "directly competitive". Reviewing the disputes relating to the term "domestic industry" in application of the safeguards provisions since the establishment of the WTO, the interpretation of the term "like" has been made imposing weight on the physical characteristics of the products. This interpretation is in contrast with that of the interpretation of the term "directly competitive" which has been interpreted with imposed weight on the commercial elasticity of substitution which can be measured by the final use or consumer's taste.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.209-227
• /
• 2006

This paper analyse current interpretation of the "causal link" that in particular, focuses principally on the so-called "non-attribution" requirement of Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement. The safeguard measures are justified as a temporary economic adjustment to harm that is caused by an increase in imports. The problem with this justification is that there are other kinds of economic forces that may injure domestic industries, such as changes in consumer tastes, government spending or a lack thereof, and economic downturns. These problems do not justify government-imposed remedies. When factors therefore other than increased imports are causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time, such injury shall not be attributed to increased imports. The Appellate Body stressed that a contribution of third-party imports to the existence of serious injury must be sufficiently clear as to establish the existence of the causal link required, it found that Article 4.2(b) does not suggest that increased imports be the sole cause of the serious injury, or that other factors causing injury must be excluded from the determination of serious injury. The interest in separation is to ensure that a measure is not applied to remedy harm not caused by imports, but this basic point assumes that the harm is distinguishable in the first place. It also assumes that the safeguard is designed to respond to harm caused by imports. In fact safeguards were never intended to respond to this kind of unfair trade, but rather to provide whatever emergency relief might assist an ailing domestic industry if imports happened to be a part of that injury. The Appellate Body's insistence in breaking cause and effect down to minutia in the non-attribution analysis seems to be so overly intricate that it conflicts with it's broader focus on evaluating factors that effect harm on the industry as a whole.