• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.193-237
• /
• 2018

The recent surge in the ISD lawsuit filed against the Korean government is likely to cause major domestic confusion. This is because in most cases, foreign investors have claimed billions of won in damages filed against Korea in the ISD lawsuit. Public opinion will be generated to abolish the ISD lawsuit system, which is included in the international investment agreement, when a decision comes out in the Elliott/Mason case or Lone Star case, which has already been completed by the hearing. It is clear that the ISD clause, which is commonly included in most of the BITs, FTAs, can be a limiting factor in the government's public policy, as shown by many investment disputes. However, it is not necessary to have a negative view of the ISD clause itself, given that it is a system that can protect Korean investors from illegal and inappropriate actions by local governments. Since Korea already allows the system of ISD lawsuits with many countries through FTAs and BITs, and negotiations are underway to sign FTAs with new countries, the possibility that foreign investors will refer to the ISD proceeding further to our government's public policy will increase. In order to prepare for an ISD lawsuit, the Korean government has launched a response team consisting of government practitioners, private scholars, and legal professionals in the central government ministries to review major legal issues that are controversial in the cases of the ISD. In particular, local governments and public institutions, which fail to recognize the importance of international investment regulations and ISD clause, need to share and train relevant information so that all processes for public policy planning and implementation comply with international investment rules such as BITs and FTAs.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.525-541
• /
• 2012

This study aims to investigate the possibility of Investor-State Dispute under Korea US FTA in relation to Korean environmental impact assessment scheme. The study analyzes the Investor-State Dispute case between Bilcon of Delaware and the government of Canada. The case study shows that Bilcon challenged Canada with violations of NAFTA 1102, 1103 and 1105, arguing that Canada treated Bilcon in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The study analyzes two different scenarios that Korea could face with arbitration for alleged breach of its obligations under the Korea US FTA in relation to EIA scheme. From analyzing the case study in relation to two different scenarios, the study finds that problems previously identified and associated with EIA scheme in Korea could directly or indirectly cause Investor-State Dispute Settlement process between Korea and American investors. The study concludes that the risk of violating Korea US FTA related with Korean EIA could be reduced by creating Korean EIA scheme in a transparent and unarbitrary manner which guarantees fair public participation and elaborating the concrete meaning of sustainable development in EIA law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

This article examines the Challenge through Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards. Either party may request annulment of the award by applying in writing addressed to the ICSID Secretary-General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The annulment proceedings must focus on the award itself. Because committees have no inherent supremacy over the arbitral tribunal, they should not review the tribunal's findings on evidence, damage, interest, and cost findings. Otherwise, the parties would have, in effect, two opportunities, and that will almost certainly weaken the reliability of the entire ICSID system. In short, because of the limited scope of review under ICSID annulment and because annulment is not an opportunity for the parties to re-try the case, committees should not allow new arguments or new evidence. Since an annulment committee is not a court of appeals, it cannot create a new res judicata. Committees can only decide not to annul an award, thus confirming the existing res judicata or annul the award, in which case the affected decision ceases to be res judicata. An obvious annulment decision stipulating which particular findings of the award remain res judicata should prevent any uncertainty in resubmission proceedings.