• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.141-165
• /
• 2007

This study aims to make a contribution to the promotion of trade and economic development of South Korea, and, at the same time, call attention to the increasing trend of investment agreements concluded within Free Trade Agreements (FTA) by examining theoretically FTAs and dispute resolution and investigating systematically the conclusion procedure of agreements, and the system, institutions, and jurisdiction of dispute resolution, and presenting these findings to the government and investors involved. The most problematic aspect in the legal process of arbitration involving disputes over investment is that of arguments concerning the right of jurisdiction. When a dispute arises, even though an investor files for arbitration at an ICSID institution, the parties become involved in another energy-consuming argument even before proceeding to the hearing and decision of the original plan in cases in which the respondent of the dispute files an objection to the decision rights of the arbitral tribunal. As the main basis for this type of plea, the point of non-existence of jurisdiction is first raised where the applicable dispute does not fall under the range of investments defined in individual investment contracts or investment agreements such as a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). To avoid an open-ended definition of investment for the range of investments, articles concerning investments in the FTA and NAFTA between Canada and the USA adopt the limited closed-list method. Article 96 of the FTA between Japan and Mexico applied the same abovementioned method of limited form of definition regarding range of investments and concluded BITs between member countries of APEC applied a similar method as well. Instead of employing the previously used inclusive definition, the BITs concluded between countries of Latin America and the USA are equipped with limited characteristics of an investment. Furthermore, to correspond with this necessary condition the three following requirements are needed : 1) fixed investment funding; 2) expected profits resulting from such investments; 3) and the existence of fixed risk bearing.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.343-373
• /
• 2006

지적재산권의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 전통적으로 지적재산권의 침해에 있어서 결과의 발생이 없는 행위지를 침해지로 인정하지 않았다. 어문과 예술작품을 보호하기 위해 1886년 체결된 베른협약(Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) 제5조 제1항은 저작자가 베른협약에 따라 보호되는 저작물에 관하여 본국 이외의 동맹국에서 각 법률이 현재 또는 장래에 자국민에게 부여하는 권리 및 이 협약이 특별히 부여하는 권리를 향유한다고 규정하여 내국민대우원칙을 천명하고 있다. 또한 베른협약 제5조 제2항은 저작권의 보호와 향유는 저작물의 본국에서 보호가 존재하는 여부와 관계가 없이, 보호의 범위와 저작자의 권리를 보호하기 위하여 주어지는 구제의 방법은 오로지 보호가 주장되는 국가의 법률의 지배를 받는다라고 규정하여 저작권 침해가 발행한 국가의 법률의 적용을 명시하고 있다. 인터넷과 무선통신 기술의 발달은 저작물을 디지탈 형식으로 실시간에 전세계에 배포하는 것을 가능하게 하였다. 특히 저작물의 인터넷상에서의 배포는 다국적 저작권 침해행위를 야기하여, 저작권자가 다수의 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 제기하여 판결을 집행하는 것이 필요하게 되었다. 헤이그국제사법회의(Hague Conference on Private International Law)에서 1992년부터 논의되어 온 민사 및 상사사건의 국제재판관할과 외국판결에 관한 협약(Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters)에서 채택된1999년의 예비초안(preliminary draft) 및 2001년 외교회의에서 수정된 잠정초안(Interim text) (이하 헤이그 협약 )은 저작권자가 저작권침해행위가 발생한 각 국가에서 저작권 침해행위를 금지하는 소송을 제기할 필요없이, 동 협약의 한 가맹국가의 법원의 저작권침해금지판결을 다른 가맹국가에서도 집행할 수 있는 가능성을 제시해 주는데 의미가 있다. 헤이그 협약 제10조는 불법행위(torts)에 관한 일반적인 재판관할에 관한 규정을 두고 있으며, 저작권침해에 관한 분쟁은 동 조항의 적용을 받는다. 제10조에 의해 당사자는 가해행위지 국가의 법원 또는 결과발생지 국가의 법원에서 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 결과발생지의 경우 제10조 1항 (b)는 피고가 자신의 행위가 본국의 법규에 비추어 동일한 성격의 손해를 초래할 수 있다라고 합리적으로 예견할 수 없었던 경우에 본 조항의 적용을 배제하고 있다. 인터넷을 통한 저작권침해의 경우, 피고가 자신의 국가의 법규하에서 합법적으로 저작물을 웹사이트에 게시하였으나, 그 행위가 다운로딩이 행해진 국가에서 불법인 경우, 피고는 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었으므로 이에 문제가 제기된다. iCrave TV사건에서, 피고인 캐나다회사가 미국 및 캐나다에서 방송되는 텔레비젼 방송 프로그램을 자신의 웹사이트에 게시하여 이용자들로 하여금 컴퓨터를 통하여 방송을 재시청 할 수 있도록 하였는데 이는 캐나다에서 합법인 반면에 미국에서는 저작권 침해에 해당한다. 피고는 방송 프로그램을 인터넷상에서 재방송하는 것은 캐나다법상 합법이므로 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었다고 주장하면서, 해당 사이트에 오직 캐나다 거주자만의 접속을 허용하고 미국 거주자의 접속을 제한하는 일련의 Click-Wrap 계약과 스크린 장치를 제공하였다고 주장하였다. 본 사건 피고의 주장을 받아들인다고 가정할 때, 제10조 1항(b)에 의해 원고는 결과발생지인 미국법원의 재판관할을 강제할 수 없을 것이다. 지적재산권을 둘러싼 분쟁에 관한 재판관할과 국제법상의 판결의 승인 및 집행의 통일성을 기하기 위하여 2001년 1월 세계지적재산권기구(World Intellectual Property Organization)가 제안한 WIPO 협약초안(Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters)은 헤이그 협약이 재판관할과 판결의 승인 및 집행에 대한 일반적인 접근을 하고 있는 점에 반하여 지적재산권자의 보호라는 측면을 고려하여 지적재산권침해소송에 국제재판관할권을 규정하고 있다. WIPO 협약초안 제6조는 저작권자가 저작권 침해를 막기 위한 합리적인 조치를 취한 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 피할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 본 조항에 의할 경우, iCrave TV사건의 피고는 미국에서의 저작권 침해소송을 회피할 수 있을 것이다. 이상과 같이 헤이그 협약이 외국판결의 승인 및 집행을 가능하게 하고 있음에도 불구하고, 외국법원의 판결이 다수의 가맹국가에서 집행되지 못하는 가장 큰 장애는 대다수의 국가들이 외국법원의 판결이 공서양속(Public Policy)에 반하는 경우 판결을 승인하지 않는 예외규정을 두고 있기 때문이다. 미국의 경우, Uniform Recognition Act와 Restatement(Third) of Foreign Relations에 따른 공서양속의 예외규정(Public Policy exception)은 외국법원의 판결의 승인을 부인하는 근거가 된다. Yahoo! 사건에서 Yahoo! Inc.의 옥션 사이트를 통해 독일 나치 소장물의 판매가 이루어졌는데, 프랑스 형법상 이는 범죄행위에 해당하므로, 프랑스 법원은Yahoo! Inc.에게 프랑스 이용자가 당해 옥션 사이트에 접속할 수 없도록 모든 가능한 조치를 취할 것을 명하였다. 이에 미국 법원은 프랑스 법원의 판결은 Yahoo! Inc.의 미국헌법 제1 수정(First Amendment)의 언론의 자유(freedom of speech)에 반하므로 판결의 집행을 거부하였는데 이는 공서양속의 예외규정을 보여주는 예이다. 헤이그 협약 제28조와 WIPO 협약초안 제25조 또한 공서양속의 예외규정을 두고 있다. 본 논문은 인터넷과 통신기술의 발달로 야기되는 다국적 저작권 침해사건에서 한 국가의 법원의 저작권 침해금지판결이 다수의 국가에서 승인 및 집행될 수 있는 능성을 헤이그 협약과 WIPO 협약초안 및 미국판결을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 국제적으로 통일된 저작권법이 존재하지 않고 외국 판결의 승인을 부인하는 예외조항과 외국판결의 집행에 관한 각국의 이해관계와 준거법의 해석이 다른 현시점에서 지적재산권의 속지주의를 뛰어넘어 외국법원의 판결을 국제적으로 집행하는 것은 다소 어려움이 있어 보이나 국제적인 집행가능성의 열쇠를 제시하는 헤이그 협약과 장래의 국제조약에 그 기대를 걸어볼 수 있겠다.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

Whether an investor can invoke a dispute settlement procedure stipulated in other BIT based on the MFN clause in the original BIT is an important issue. There is a difference in the interpretation of MFN clause in which the scope of the treatment stipulates the slightly different contents for each investment treaty. Therefore, this study considered ICSID arbitration cases related to the applicability of MFN clause for investment dispute settlement provisions. There are two different approaches for the applicability of MFN clause by arbitral tribunals. At first, the expanded interpretation of the MFN clause can be applied to procedural regulations, in that the purpose of the investment treaty is to protect foreign investors and to ensure their status. So, foreign investors can invoke a BIT of a third country that is advantageous to them. Second, the limited interpretation of the MFN clause can not be applied to procedural regulations. Without explicit regulation, the term treatment can not be considered to include dispute resolution provisions. And the BIT that the host state has concluded with third country is a treaty that applies only to the contracting party, so it can not be used by foreign investors of other nationality. Therefore, this study suggests concretely stipulating the scope of MFN clause under the investment treaty, highlighting that certain restrictions should be applied to the MFN clause. Furthermore, it is required continually investigating and analyzing the database of the scope of MFN clause.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• pp.139-158
• /
• 2018

As trade volume increases and the business environment becomes more complex and competitive, international trade disputes are also increasing and becoming more complex. Parties need to become more aware of alternatives to costly and time consuming arbitration and litigation. The ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) can encompass all dispute resolution processed and can act as a substitute for traditional litigation. Mediation, a type of ADR, offers an amicable dispute settlement mechanism between concerned parties through a natural mediator. There are several strong points of mediation compared with litigation or arbitration. First of all, mediation can take place without having to complete time-consuming and expensive discovery processes associated with litigation. In addition, since mediation is considered a private process, the dispute can remain out of the public eye. It can be embarrassing and disrupt business when customer or suppliers learn that a company is involved in litigation. Lastly, mediation is less adversarial than litigation or arbitration, so the parties often can salvage their relationships. Often the parties to mediation find themselves continuing to conduct business. In spite of such benefits of mediation, it is less used in Korea and therefore, this article aims to promote the mediation system in international trade disputes. However, this paper has limitation, for example, why ADR is not used well in Korea and need to suggest how ADR can work best in international trade disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

Together with the development of space science outer space law has become one of the most rapidly developing branches of international law. This reflects a general realization that these new activities must be subject to reasonable legal regulation if they are to serve the peaceful purposes of mankind without undue confusion and disorder. The exploration and use of outer space introduces many novel opportunities and dilemmas, and inspired insights are needed in the development of this new resource. In particular, the settlement of space law disputes is a relatively new discussion in international law. However, the significance of the settlement of space law disputes was acknowledged in various colloquia organized by legal academicians and practitioners around the world. Analysis of the dispute settlement provisions in space agreements plainly reveals the degree to which States persist to be mistrustful of any impingement to their sovereignty. They are reluctant to submit disputes to adjudication and binding arbitration, particularly when these provisions are negotiated between States which have dissimilar political, economic and social interests and demography. However, there is a slow but clear shift in this attitude as States realize the contemporary political, economic and technical pressures necessitating the lifting of the veil of State sovereignty. The development of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes arising in relation to the development of the exploration and exploitation of outer space has been the subject of global study by highly qualified publicists and international institutions. The 1972 Liability Convention is the space treaty with the most elaborate provisions for dispute settlement. However, it fails to ensure binding decisions. In this point, the 1998 Taipei Final Draft Convention may be a useful instrument for further consideration on whether an independent sectorialized dispute settlement mechanism should be established. Considering these circumstances it seemed essential to take legislative action to implement a system as comprehensive as the relevant legal framework are in the Law of the Sea and International Criminal Law mechanisms for dispute settlement and conflict avoidance from outer space activities.