• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2022

East Asia's Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) came into force in 2022 as the world's largest free trade agreement. RCEP was concluded, signed and brought into force in the face of major international uncertainty and is a significant boost to the global trading system. RCEP brings Australia, China, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand into the same agreement with the ten member ASEAN group at its centre. It keeps markets open and updates trade and investment rules in East Asia, a major centre of global economic activity, at a time of rising protectionism when the WTO itself is under threat. The agreement builds on ASEAN's free trade agreements and strengthens ASEAN centrality. One of the pillars of RCEP is an economic cooperation agenda which has its antecedents in ASEAN's approach to bringing along its least developed members and builds on the experience of capacity building in APEC and technical cooperation under the ASEAN Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. There is an opportunity to create a framework that facilitates deeper economic cooperation that involves experience-sharing, extending RCEP's rules and membership at the same time as strengthening political cooperation. The paper suggests some areas that might be best suited to cooperation - that is confidence and trust building instead of or before negotiation - and discusses how non-members may be engaged and the membership expanded. Options such as multilateralising provisions and becoming a platform for policy convergence and coordinating unilateral reforms are canvassed.

• 수산경영론집
• /
• 제47권1호
• /
• pp.31-45
• /
• 2016

This study aims to evaluate the status of implementation of bilateral-fishery order since the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement came into effect in 1999 in order to improve fisheries relationships between two countries. The agreement regulates bilateral-fishery order by the principle of the EEZ regime and mutual benefits among countries. (e.g. the mutual agreed fishing in EEZ and cooperation for resource management). However, the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement has some limitations such as reducing quotas of the mutual agreed fishing in EEZ, strengthening Japanese fisheries regulation, insufficient cooperation for fisheries management and joint countermeasures. In order to improve fisheries relationships between the two countries, it is imperative to rebalance quotas for the mutual agreed fishing in EEZ, to establish effective resource management systems in the Intermediate zone, to invigorate fisheries cooperation in the private sector, and to introduce new management systems by species over the all waters around East Asia. To accomplish such measures, it is necessary for Korean and Japanese governments to improve fisheries relationships based on trust and cooperation, achieving a win-win situation. Additionally, it is required to incorporate fisheries management among Korea, China, and Japan.

• International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.14-26
• /
• 2020

We categorize partnership types between network operators and a global video streaming or over-the-top service provider, Netflix from 2011 to the first quarter 2018. The options are based on the integration of over-the-top (OTT), Netflix with pay TV and telecommunication operators in the form of carrier billing, access to over-the-top (OTT) via devices or the development of their tariff plans. Options of the Type 3, 'cooperation' or the Type 4, 'agreement' entails a kind of the technical involvement between two partners and commercial agreement. The types of partnership are evolving from one to others. Some partnerships have characteristics of more than one type. The majority of technical or service integration cooperation of Type 3 entail bundling and marketing promotion of Type 2 and Type 1. Similarly, the 'agreement' of Type 4, co-branded or white-label service initiative entail tariff or device user interface (UI) integration of the 'cooperation' of Type 3 and joint marketing initiatives of Type 1.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• 제46권3호
• /
• pp.143-154
• /
• 2024

The BBNJ Agreement, adopted on June 19, 2023, is considered to be the third implementation agreement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea after the 1994 Part XI Implementation Agreement and the 1995 High Seas Fisheries Agreement. Of the four themes of the BBNJ Agreement, namely marine genetic resources, area-based management measures, environmental impact assessment, and capacity building and technology transfer, only the part relating to marine genetic resources is explicitly excluded from the scope of the BBNJ Agreement. There are no explicit exclusions in relation to area-based management measures and environmental impact assessments. Therefore, the sections on area-based management instruments and environmental impact assessments may conflict with fisheries issues in other international fisheries instruments during the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement. Although the BBNJ Agreement has a so-called "not-undermine" provision to ensure that it does not conflict with international fisheries instrument represented by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 High Seas Fisheries Agreement, and regional fisheries management organizations, it cannot be ruled out that the BBNJ Agreement may conflict with regional fisheries organizations' area-based management measures and environmental impact assessments. However, the potential for conflicts also implies the potential for developmental outcomes if they are harmoniously interpreted and implemented. First of all, the emergence of the BBNJ Agreement as a comprehensive treaty covering the high seas and the Area provides an opportunity to build an integrated mechanism for international fisheries insturments that were previously fragmented by regions and species. In addition, the BBNJ Agreement can establish a cooperation system with existing regional fisheries management organizations in the process of establishing area-based management measures and environmental impact assessment of cumulative fishing activities. In line with this, regional fisheries organizations may evolve in the future to proactively adopt legal framework changes and environmental protection measures that emerge from the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권6호
• /
• pp.1-19
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This paper aims at analyzing the functions and effectiveness of the cooperation agenda in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), focusing on the cases of Asian countries. This paper estimates the contribution of this agenda to the sustainable development in Asia by providing the 'side payment' of the economic integration that encourages foreign investment and change in global value chains (GVC). Design/methodology - This study analyzes the functions of the cooperation chapter in FTAs by applying the cooperative game theory and reviewing the structures of the related FTAs. Also, as an empirical study, the existing FTA provisions and related development assistant programs in Asia are reviewed in this paper, especially focusing on the FTAs signed by Korea. Findings - Our main findings can be summarized as follows: The drawback of the economic integration, which would be the imbalanced economic benefit, can be redressed by the cooperation chapter in FTAs functioning as a 'side payment'. Indeed, as the examples of Korean FTAs show, more foreign investment and the GVC expansion in Asian countries have been encouraged thanks to the implementation of the cooperation chapters. Originality/value - This paper attempts to find how a legally binding agreement would influence the cooperation agenda in Asia which has never been analyzed despite the increasing number of so-called 'cooperation' chapters in the FTAs.

• 수완나부미
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.271-301
• /
• 2024

Diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia have been going on for almost five decades. However, the cooperation between the two countries was still very limited at the beginning of diplomatic relations. As time went by, this cooperation began to expand, especially after Jokowi's visit to the United Arab Emirates in 2015. After this visit, the United Arab Emirates also showed increased interest in Indonesia and started to aggressively exercise soft power in Indonesia. Agreement after agreement have been signed, not only in the economic, political, and security sectors, but also in other areas. This phenomenon of increasing cooperation is one form of success in the soft power exercised by the United Arab Emirates towards Indonesia. Therefore, this research will look at the United Arab Emirates' soft power strategy towards Indonesia from 2015-2022. The concept developed by Joshua Kurlantzick is used to analyze using four important indicators that include educational cooperation, religious exchanges, humanitarian assistance, as well as cultural exchanges.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2023

The investment agreement prepared at the beginning of inter-Korean economic cooperation in 2000 can be evaluated as very ineffective as a product of mutual political and diplomatic compromise rather than an effective protection for our investment assets. South Korean companies suffered a lot of losses due to the freezing of assets in the Geumgang mountain district and the closure of the Kaeseung Industrial Complex, but they did not receive practical damage relief due to institutional vulnerabilities. Currently, North Korea is under international economic sanctions of the UN Security Council, so it is true that the resumption of inter-Korean economic cooperation is far away, but North Korea's human resources and geographical location are still attractive investment destinations for us. Therefore, if strained relations between the two Koreas recover in the future and international economic sanctions on North Korea are eased, Korean companies' investment in North Korea will resume. However, the previous inter-Korean investment agreement system was a fictional systemthat was ineffective. Therefore, if these safety devices are not reorganized when economic cooperation resumes, unfair damage to Korean companies will be repeated again. The core of the improved investment guarantee system is not a bilateral system between the two Koreas, but the establishment of a multilateral system through North Korea's inclusion in the international economy. Specifically, it includes encouraging North Korea to join international agreements for the execution of arbitration decisions, securing subrogation rights through membership of international insurance groups such as MIGA, creating matching funds by international financial organizations. Through this new approach, it will be possible to improve the safety of Korean companies' investment in North Korea, and ultimately, it will be necessary to lay the foundation for mutual development through economic cooperation between the two Koreas.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2010

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, arbitration, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, it will be important thing for arbitral institutions to reach an agreement to promote the dispute settlement of the commercial disputes, for which efforts have been made between the Korean Commercial Arbitral Board(KCAB) and principal arbitration institutions of the foreign countries. Since 1973, the KCAB has entered into many arbitration agreements with well-known foreign institutions of arbitration. If the place of arbitration is not so designated by the parties, it, as a general rule, shall be the country of the respondent(s) under the Korea-Japanese Arbitration Agreement. On the other hand, the U.S.-Korean Commercial Arbitration Agreement maintains 'Joint Arbitration Committee which finally decide the place of arbitration. In 1996, the Korea-Austria Agreement of Cooperation was concluded for the prompt and equitable settlement on an amicable basis of commercial disputes. Under this Agreement, arbitral institutions between Korea and Austria agreed to act as an appointing authority in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It is also very important for Korea and China including North Korea to cooperate each other for the settlement of the commercial disputes within the Pan Yellow Sea Economic Bloc(PYSEB). The PYSEB is quickly becoming a distinctive and crucial region in the world sharing geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Finally, it should be considered to establish a central common system for settlement promotion of the commercial disputes within the PYSEB through the arbitration agreement. Such a dispute resolution system was already introduced and established within the area of the NAFTA, and it is called the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA).

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.150-183
• /
• 1999

Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement concluded in 1965 made a contribution to the stable development of fisheries relationship for both countries until the year of 1980. From the time on thereafter a series of respectable fishery disputes occurred throughout the period of fisheries self-regulation in accordance with alteration of home and abroad conditions. And both countries marched into a cooperation era by enforcement of the new fisheries agreement from the 23 January 1999, because the Fisheries Agreement system of 1965 had many limitations to settle the fundamental fisheries problems. In this paper, the author carried out the legal interpretation, arrangement of historical facts and evaluation of actual results of the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1965. The key contents of the Fisheries Agreement were the establishment of 12-nautical mile exclusive fishery zone and the joint-control fishery zone under the principles of maintenance of MSY for fishery resources, freedom of high seas and mutual cooperation. The legal foundation of the conclusion of the Fisheries Agreement were the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 and the four International Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 1958. During the 33 years, the fisheries power of Korea made a rapid stride, on the other hand that of Japan was almost stagnated. And in the meantime, there were very important development on the international law of the sea, for instant, the settlement of 12-nautical mile territorial sea regime and the establishment of 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone regime. Annual meetings of the Joint Fisheries Committee were not successful to fill the role for conservation of fishery resources. The Fisheries Self-Regulation Agreement concluded in 1980 was also insufficient to accept the new international regime on the law of the sea, for that reason it was terminated on 23 January 1999. But it is true that the Fisheries Agreement of 1965 made a contribution to normalization of fisheries relationship between both countries and fisheries development of Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.3-34
• /
• 2019

The resumption of economic cooperation between South and the North Korea will be a new growth engine for our economy. Many Korean companies are preparing to invest in North Korea in accordance with the progress of inter-Korean relations. However, there are many risks inherent in inter-Korean economic cooperation, as experienced in previous cases. Specifically, one should be prepared for unfair measures such as the expropriation of investment assets of South Korean enterprises by North Korea authorities. Therefore, it is essential to review the protection measures of investment in North Korea and to review the investment dispute settlement system. The South and the North have an agreement to establish the inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee to resolve the disputes that may arise if one party's investments are lost due to inappropriate or unfair measures due to the other party's authority. However, the Investment Agreement, which governs the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee, contains a number of declarative statements that are somewhat ineffective. Even today, nearly 20 years after the adoption of the Agreement, the specific detailed procedures have shown no real progress, such as in the enactment of arbitration rules. Therefore, at present, it is difficult to expect a system that can effectively address the damage of our corporations which have invested in North Korea. When the assets freeze after the suspension of Kumgang tourism and the closure of the Kaeseung Industrial Complex by North Korea, the activation of the inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee is the most important prerequisite for economic cooperation with North Korea. For this purpose, the resolution of disputes through the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee has to be made more concrete, with the effectiveness of the dispute settlement system enhanced by means of various efforts.