• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권4호
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

투자협정상의 MFN 조항을 실체적인 규정 외에 절차적인 규정에까지 적용할 수 있는지에 대한 논의는 보호 범위를 결정하기 때문에 중요한 의의를 가진다. 그러나 투자협정마다 MFN 조항에서 대우의 범위를 조금씩 상이하게 규정하고 있어 이에 대한 해석의 차이가 존재한다. 그러므로 본 연구는 ICSID에서 판정한 중재사례에 초점을 맞추어 국제투자분쟁에서 외국인투자자가 원 투자협정상의 MFN 조항을 통하여 다른 투자협정상에 규정된 분쟁해결절차를 원용할 수 있는지를 분석함으로써 MFN 조항의 적용범위를 획정할 수 있는 기준들을 도출하여 유용한 시사점 및 실무적인 지침을 제시하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2012

Although political uncertainty exists between China and Taiwan, the two countries have been expanding their economic exchange since the 1980s. That economic exchange is not limited to trade, and its investment segment is constantly expanding. The investment was one-sided by Taiwan in the past, but since a change in policy by the Taiwan government in 2009, Chinese capital is able to flow into Taiwan for direct investment. These kinds of policy changes related to investment between the two countries require follow-up actions such as profit protection for investors, elimination of investment limitations, simplification of investment procedures, and establishment of an investment dispute resolution system. The main topic of this study is the resolution mechanism for investment disputes between China and Taiwan. At present, an individual investment dispute between two countries is settled according to each country's own regulations for dispute resolution. However, these two countries have not prepared dispute resolution regulations related to cases of investment disputes between Chinese or Taiwanese investors and the Chinese or Taiwanese government, or between the Chinese government and the Taiwanese government. Moreover, they do not have any agreements related to investment disputes. Therefore, in this paper, I enumerate the regulations related to investment dispute resolution between China and Taiwan, and then I point out the problems and suggest solutions for improvement. Also, through this study, I would like to contribute to establishing and implementing an investment dispute resolution mechanism between South Korea and North Korea.

• 한국벤처창업학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국벤처창업학회 2023년도 춘계학술대회
• /
• pp.39-44
• /
• 2023

우리나라에서는 벤처생태계의 구성이 태생적으로 정부 주도로 법제화된 정부자금의 지원이 기초가 되어 이루어지면서 공적 자금의 정책적 목적에 따라 운영되어왔다. 따라서 벤처투자기구에 대해서 이해상충 가능성 배제, 고도의 윤리성, 공정성 및 투명성 등을 요구하는 등 강한 규제가 반영되게 되었다. 이러한 공적규제가 일면 타당성이 있을 수 있으나, 공적규제 위주의 관리감독 체계는 규제의 영향을 크게 받는 한국 벤처투자 시장의 성격상 민간자금의 유입을 제한할 수 있다. 민간 중심의 벤처투자 시장으로 전환하기 위해서는 공적규제를 강화하기보다는 자율규제 영역을 확대하여 업계의 전문성과 효율성에 친화적인 규제 환경을 조성할 필요가 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 벤처투자 시장의 자율규제 가능 영역을 살펴보고, 벤처투자기구의 운용사 관점에서의 자율규제 방안을 제시하였다. 구체적 방안 중 하나로는 출자자 사이의 자치적 규범이라고 할 수 있는 규약의 표준이 참여자의 전문적인 식견을 최대한 반영하여 마련된 것이므로, 펀드 결성 이후 출자자 사이의 규약을 둘러싼 분쟁이 발생하는 경우 이를 자율적으로 해결할 수 있는 1차적인 분쟁 조정 절차를 마련해 볼 수 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.447-469
• /
• 1997

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.49-73
• /
• 2012

2000년 이후 한-인도간 교역규모가 증대함에 따라, 양국간 분쟁 또한 증가가 예상된다. 국내기업이 인도기업과 분쟁을 효율적이면서 효과적으로 해결하기 위하여는 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결방법(Alternative Dispute Resolution; ADR)에 대한 이해가 중요하다. 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결제도의 특징으로는 첫째, 협상, 조정(conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat) 및 중재에 의한 해결방법이 주요 ADR제도이고, 둘째, 인도는 중재 조정법에 의하여 조정(conciliation)에 관한 별도의 규정을 마련하여 강제력을 부여하고 있으며, 셋째, 조정제도는 크게 conciliation, mediation 및 Lok Adalat로 구분할 수 있다. 한국기업들이 인도기업과 분쟁을 해결하는 방법을 다음과 같이 제언하고자 한다. 첫째, 향후 인도기업과 투자나 거래를 하고자 하는 한국기업들은 ADR제도를 활용하여 분쟁을 해결하여야 하며, 둘째, 이를 위해 인도의 각 ADR제도에 대한 지식을 사전에 습득하고 각 분쟁 상황에 맞는 유용한 ADR방법을 선택하여야 한다. 셋째, 협상력을 강화하여야 하며, 넷째, 인도의 공공분야에 직접투자를 할 경우에는 Lok Adalat 제도를 숙지하여 이에 대하여 적극적으로 대처하여야 하며, 마지막으로 분쟁이 발생한 경우 해결방법을 찾는 것보다 분쟁을 예방하는 것이 중요하다 하겠다.

• 정보화사회
• /
• 통권121호
• /
• pp.57-61
• /
• 1998

서비스에 대한 국제무역이 상당히 활발하다. 이것은 세계경제 자체가 옛날의 산업사회에서 고도산업사회로 넘어가고, 외국인 투자가 활발하게 이루어지고 있기 때문에 서비스에 관한 국가간의 거래에 대한 룰을 만들어서 물에 따라서 국제계획이 활발하게 되고 분쟁이 있는 경우에 일방적으로 한 국가가 독점하지 않고, 모든 국가가 의뢰할 수 있는 분쟁해결장치를 만들자는 의도를 가지고 시작된 것이 우루과이라운드 협상이었고, 그 가운데 서비스 협정이 만들어진 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• pp.61-78
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to clarify the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Although most international investment treaties prescribe fair and equitable treatment that is the obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment to foreign investor, there is no clear definition and specific elements of fair and equitable treatment. Through the arbitral award cases we can find that tribunals have interpreted to include six principles; Due process & Protection from denial of justice, Good faith, Reasonableness & Nondiscrimination, Compliance with contractual obligation, Full protection and security, Transparency & Protection of the investor's legitimate expectations. This study suggest that host countries and investors focus on international trends concerning investment disputes in order to avoid future disputes. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.195-216
• /
• 2016

In determining the content of the FET standard, the tribunals stated protection of investor's legitimate expectations, due process and denial of justice, transparency, discrimination and arbitrariness, good faith, etc. The most major elements of the FET standard is the protection of the investor's legitimate and reasonable expectations. It is necessary to consider whether it is possible to what the expectations of investors are protected as legitimate and it is formed under any circumstances. If host state frustrate investor's legitimate expectations, it found a breach of the FET. The host state's specific assurance may reinforce investor's expectations, but such explicit statement is not always necessary. The host state must preserve a stable environment for investments. However, It must not be understood as the inalterability of the host state's legal framework. It implies that the host state's subsequent changes should be made consistently and predictably. The host state is entitled to exercise a reasonable regulatory authority to respond to changing circumstances in the public purpose. Therefore, whether the violation FET shall be determined through a balanced against the investor's legitimate expectations and the host state's reasonable regulatory exercise in the public interest. And investor should keep in mind that the principle of proportionality is applied unless host state provides stabilization clause or similar commitments to investor. Also host state should establish the basis of an argument about reasonable regulatory authority for public interest.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제59권
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2013

The interpretation and application of investment treaties takes place mostly by ad hoc tribunals. Their composition varies from case to case. But in interpreting and applying investment treaties are bound to exist on a ground rule and coherent criteria. Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. When interpreting investment treaties, (i) most tribunals is based on Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, (ii) tribunals rely on previous decisions, (iii) tribunals resort to travaux pr$\acute{e}$paratoires, (iv) tribunals consider the interpretative statement. When applying investment treaties, (i) treaties apply only in relation to acts or events that occurred after their entry into force, (ii) tribunals have applied different inter-temporal rules to jurisdictional clauses and substantive provisions in treaties, (iii) the relevant date for purposes of jurisdiction is the date of the institution of proceedings, (iv) Under the ICSID convention, the host state and investor's nationality must be a party to the convention on the date the proceedings are instituted. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in the interpretation and application standards of investment treaties. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 2015

Central Asian Countries had been independent in 1991 from USSR. Since then it have been increasing foreign trade and investment amount with outside countries including China, Japan, EU and South Korea. Korean enterprises and entities have endeavored to secure plentiful natural resources, oil and gas energy and expand the market share to exporting the consuming and industrial competitive goods and services for those countries. In the case of disputes of commercial transactions and investment, arbitration is regarded as a dispute resolution system which has been preferred in international transactions and investments by the business world. Since the collapse of the USSR, Central Asian Countries have worked to modernize its arbitration law and procedure to conform with international standard rules. Arbitral legislation in Central Asian countries is based on the Model Law as adopted in 1985. However, CIS's legislation systems of arbitration are not satisfied with the international standard in national laws and practices. That is the reason to consider for the specific parliament about arbitration for the dispute resolutions in the commercial transaction and investment between Korean enterprises and CIS. In this article, it is discuss problems and its alternatives in the dispute resolution about the commercial transaction and investment into Central Asian countries including the tendency to the increasing the trade volumes of goods and investment between South Korea and CIS. According to this article, South Korea consider the long term strategy followed the preferred economic relative partnership for business success on commercial transaction and investment with the Central Asian Countries.