• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.27-48
• /
• 2022

In the past decade, Korea and Japan have increasingly exhibited different strategic priorities in trade in face of China's rising global economic prowess and worsening US-China trade conflict. Japan's trade policy decisions have worked to reinforce its economic and security ties with the US as a means to counter China. Japan has used both bilateral and multilateral means to secure its ties with the US against China. In contrast, Korea's trade policy positions have been one of 'strategic ambiguity'. Korea has been more conciliatory towards China, reluctant to take actions that would counter China's interest. Korea has mainly resorted to bilateral channels to maintain favorable relations with both China and the US. Korea's reluctance to clearly ally with the US against China has been observed across different administrations with opposing political orientations. This paper examines Korea and Japan's diverging strategic priorities in trade through the 2017 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference; the 2017 US imposition of Section 232 on steel; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Korea-US FTA renegotiation and the Korea-China FTA Phase Two Negotiation; and the 2019 Japan-US Trade Agreement.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.1053-1062
• /
• 2015

This research assesses the implementation of the bilateral fisheries order of the China-Japan fisheries agreement. After establishment of UNCLOS, the China-Japanese fisheries agreement has played as a basis for the fisheries order in the East China Sea. The China-Japanese fisheries agreement intends that the fisheries industries in China and Japan can utilize the renewable natural resources in the East China Sea. As the EEZ of China overlaps with that of Japanese in the East China Sea, the two countries established the China-Japan Provisional Measure Zone and Middle Zone in the Sea. Even though the three coastal States (e.g. Korea, China, and Japan) in the East China Sea are involved in managing these zones, there has been little effort to coordinate each county's management. Additionally, the Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement, which is for the area of N $27^{\circ}$, has made costal States to establish and implement united measures to conduct effective fisheries management. Regarding access to the joint fishing zone in EEZ, Chinese fisheries regulations have been enforced in the zone because the fishing capacity of China exceeds all of other countries, reducing the number of fishing licenses and catch quotas. It turned out that a nation that has authority over fisheries resources tends to establish specific conditions of fishing operations to maximize its national interest. In the China-Japan Provisional Measure Zone, Chinese and Japanese authorities have introduced united measures to manage fisheries resources. However, in the Middle Zone between China and Japan, there is no regulation on fishing; both countries' fishing vessels can have free access to the zone. Thus, it is recommended that one should introduce an international fisheries management regime for the Middle Zone. In this regard, Korea should play a leading role in establishing the international management regime because Korea has middle position in terms of geographical standpoint, the degree of dependence on commercial fishing, and its fishing capacity.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.81-108
• /
• 2008

Since the declaration made by UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on EEZs, The open seas of Northeast Asia, considerd as a convention area, needed new agreements in conformity with the changes brought by the introduction of the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) system. The Contracting Parties of these agreements set up their own EEZs, which extend certain ranges from their baselines, Fishing in the other party's EEZ is done based on mutual agreements, which take into account traditional fishing activity in the zones. Seperate fishries management systems, in accordance with the relevant legal status of the waters, are applied to individual overlapping areas: Middle Zone in the Bast Sea and the waters south of jeju Island, Interim Measure Zone in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea, and the Transitional Zone in the Yellow Sea. They decided to conclude fisheries agreements as the provisional agreement under Article 74(3) of the UN Convention before the delimitations of the EEZs to avoid the territorial disputes. China and Japan concluded the Fishries Agreement in the November 1997, allowing each coastal State 52 mile EEZ. it was followed by Korea and Japan in September 1998, reaching a final compromise. And also Korea and China came to a satisfactary settlement in November 1998. Fisheries agreements have been established between the three North-east Asian States, the agreement are all bilateral. That implies inefficient resource management on the overlapping waters of the three states, especially on the East China Sea. The Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement and the China-Japan Fishery Agreement worked as governing rules in the North-east Asian seas before the establishment of EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones). However the conclusion of the bilateral fishery agreements, Korea China and Japan have developed EEZs, and these three countries have competed for the exploitation of fisheries resources. Therefore, the issue of fisheries resource management was no longer a single countries' problem and emerged as a common issue facing these three countries. In recognition of the above-mentioned problem, it is needed for the construction of cooperative System fishery management in the North-east Asian seas. Therefore, cooperative measures should be establishied. The final goal of the construction of fisheries management cooperative system is to establish sustainable fisheries in the North-east Asian seas. However, there is a big difference in fisheries management tools, fishing gear, exploitation rate of species, etc. This implies that a careful approach should be taken in order to achieve the cooperative fisheries management among Korea, China and Japan. conclusionly, the Governments of Korea, China and Japan should complement three bilateral agreemens, and which they prepares to 'Fisheries Resource Restore Program' Between Korea, China and Japan in the adjacent waters south of Jeju Island.

• 한국항공우주법학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.05a
• /
• pp.143-149
• /
• 2008

• The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.313-324
• /
• 2022

The Chinese outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) involves various bilateral trade agreements and regional agreements signed between China and other countries. This study examines the impact of Chinese OFDI in ASEAN-5 countries through ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement (ACFTA) namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand from 2000 to 2016. This study attempts to address three research objectives. The first is to examine the motives for China's investment in ASEAN-5. The second is to explore the different impacts of China's investment across countries. The third is to investigate whether the OFDI conducted by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) will produce different impacts on the firm's efficiency score. Using the DEA approach, this study finds evidence that the overall Chinese OFDI is relatively efficient. We find that the estimated efficiency score of this OFDI has improved in pre- and post ACFTA where a higher overall efficiency score was reported when comparing pre- and post ACFTA signing for both SOEs and NSOEs. Finally, China's parent firms' efficiencies showed higher scores among NSOEs compared to SOEs after the signing of ACFTA for all ASEAN countries except Malaysia. We highlight that the country's institutional infrastructure, earlier investment presence, and diplomatic ties help in shaping an effective trade agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.123-156
• /
• 2004

Settlement of investment disputes is quite different from that of commercial disputes arising from ordinary commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc.. Therefore, it is very important to consider the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States(Washington Convention) of 1965. The creation of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID), which was established under the Washington Convention, was the belief that an institution specially designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between governments and foreign investors could help to promote increased flows of international investment. Pursuant to the Washington Convention, ICSID provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is entirely voluntary. However, once the parties have consented to arbitration under the Washington Convention, neither can unilaterally withdraw its consent. Moreover, all Contracting States of the Washington Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce ICSID arbitral awards. Provisions on ICSID arbitration are commonly found in investment contracts between governments of member countries and investors from other member countries. Advance consents by governments to submit investment disputes to ICSID arbitration can also be found in many bilateral investment treaties including the Korea-China Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments(1992), the Korea-Japan Agreement for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment(2003) and the Korea-Chile FTA, the latter was signed as of February 15, 2003 and is still pending in the National Assembly for its ratification. Arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is similarly one of the main mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes under the bilateral treaties on investment. Therefore, it is a problem of vital importance that Korean parties interested in investment to foreign countries should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes under the Washington Convention and bilateral investment treaties.

• Journal of Climate Change Research
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.373-381
• /
• 2016

Before the Conference of Parties (COP) 21 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015, most parties of UNFCCC had submitted their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) and to achieve their voluntary targets, some parties consider using international market mechanisms. As one of such mechanisms, Japan promoted its own bilateral mechanism called Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM). In this study, feasibility studies and projects under JCM have been analyzed by project type, sector, country and region, which could provide some implications in designing Korea's future climate policy to achieve Korea's targets of 11.7% using international market mechanism in INDC. Since 2010, JCM has promoted 542 projects and feasibility studies in 44 countries according to the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) database. Among 542 projects, about 80% were feasibility studies implying that JCM was more focused on project identification. However, current trends of JCM show that more projects will be soon implemented based on these feasibility studies. For sectoral categorization, projects were categorized into seven sectors-energy technology, energy efficiency, renewable energy, waste management, city, strategic planning and projects related to the country's efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). JCM projects were mitigation focused with more than 70% of projects were related to energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy technology. At the regional and country level, JCM is highly focused on Asia and especially, more than 100 projects were developed in Indonesia. Based on the analysis of JCM, in order to develop bilateral international mechanism for Korea, it is worthwhile to emphasize that Korea considers Asian countries as her partner. In addition, Korea may consider the collaboration with Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to implement projects identified by Korea and Asian partner countries. Furthermore, strategically, it is recommendable to develop jointly with Japan who has already capacity and networks with other Asian countries to mitigate GHG emissions. Such financial resources from MDBs and Japan may contribute to meet the 11.3% of GHG reduction target from abroad according to INDC of Korea.

• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.343-384
• /
• 2017

We assess the outcomes for the negotiating parties in the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the remaining eleven parties go ahead with the agreement as negotiated without the United States, as compared to the outcomes under the original twelve-member agreement signed in October 2016. We find that the eleven-party agreement, now renamed as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), is a much smaller deal than the twelve-party one, but that some parties do better without the United States in the deal, in particular those in the Western Hemisphere - Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Peru. For the politically relevant medium term, the United States stands to be less well-off outside the TPP than inside. Since provisional deals can be in place for a long time, the results of this study suggest that the eleven parties are better off to implement the CPTPP, leaving aside the controversial governance elements, the implications of which for national interests are unclear and which, in any event, may be substantially affected by parallel bilateral negotiations between individual CPTPP parties and the United States.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2003

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the gravitation of ship's cargo tons of arriving and leaving port of Busan based on the gravity model empirically and experimentally and to suggest possible ways to expand the trade quantities(cargo tons) by identifying important factors determining the port of Busan's bilateral trade flows with foreign countries by using the 1995, and 2001 data. In this paper, new independent variables, such as land, populations, and the APEC and ASEAN memberships, and new dependent variable, such as the ship's cargo tons of arrival and leaving port of Busan were used for expanding the previous studies. Empirical analysis found that the port of Busan tends to trade more with countries in close proximity and the large size of economies. The fact that the port of Busan's trades more with APEC countries than with non-APEC countries is a clear empirical evidence of the growing importance of the regional trade agreement and strategic alliance with the ports of these member countries. The main policy implication based on the findings of this study is that GDP, distance, adjacency, and APEC membership which were the affecting variables to the bilateral trade with the port of Busan should be closely investigated for enhancing the trade quantities with those foreign countries.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.255-275
• /
• 2023

Trade between South Korea and Malaysia has been steadily increasing since the conclusion of the multilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and South Korea. Bilateral FTAs such as Singapore-South Korea, Vietnam-South Korea, and Indonesia-South Korea came into effect to enhance the economic cooperation between South Korea and major ASEAN countries. However, the bilateral FTA between South Korea and Malaysia, known as Republic of Korea-Malaysia FTA, is still under negotiation. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the economic impact of a possible FTA between these two countries. To examine the economic effects of bilateral FTAs, this study analyzes the trade structure and change in the value of trade between Malaysia and South Korea using panel data analysis. Two significant findings were identified by the analysis. First, the Republic of Korea-Malaysia FTA is expected to promote trade and have a positive effect on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of South Korea. Second, the result of the calculated price elasticity based on substituting figures such as tariff, demand elasticity, and export value is that the value of manufacturing exports is expected to considerably get an increase. Therefore, an early FTA between South Korea and Malaysia would be beneficial for both national economies.