• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 2018

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel's unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan's fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2010

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international trade and commerce has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution on international business transaction. Because the form of commercial dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem simultaneously. In this article, the author discusses various issues on the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral awards under Korean Arbitration Act, which is modeled after the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL of 1985. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Korean Arbitration Act admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958(commonly known as the New York Convention). Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of anther Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provision relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention consists of Article III, IV, V. In particular, Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the grounds for refusal of recognition foreign arbitral awards. The grounds are separated into two categories : One that abides by procedures and the others are based on national legal sovereignty. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of awards. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgement, the result is that arbitral of award holders are forced to institute domestic litigation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.24
• /
• pp.25-49
• /
• 2004

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.111-180
• /
• 2009

According to English law, in a voyage policy there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure to be insured. However, Unites States law affords the implied warranty of seaworthiness a great deal of latitude. In the case of voyage policies, it has been traditionally held that the assured is bound not only to have his vessel seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage but also to keep her so, insofar as this can be achieved by himself and his agents, throughout the voyage. Additionally, a defect in seaworthiness, arising after the commencement of the risk, and permitted to continue from bad faith or want of ordinary prudence or diligence on the part of the insured or his agents, discharges the insurer from liability for any loss consequent to such bad faith, or want of prudence or diligence; but does not affect the insurance contract in reference to any other risk or loss covered by the policy, and which is not caused or exacerbated by the aforementioned defect. One of the most important areas of difference in the marine insurance contract between the U.K. and U.S. is the breach of warranty. Prior to the Wilburn Boat case, the MIA was thought to hold that the effect of a breach of warranty was similar under American law -in that under the general maritime law literal compliance with all promissory warranties is required. In this case, the Court concluded that state law should apply to a marine insurance policy, and found that there was no federal rule addressing the consequences of a breach of warranty in marine polices. However, it is of the utmost importance that this case brought to a close the imperative concordance between English and American law. Meanwhile, in relation to marine insurance contracts in Korea, this insurance is subject to English law and practice;, additionally, the international trade volume between Korea and the United States has assumed a vast scale. Therefore, we believe it is important to understand the differences in marine insurance law between the two countries in terms of marine insurance contracts, and most specifically warranties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2016

Lately each country tends to provide neutrality and ease of enforcement in order to settle disputes related to international trade through commercial arbitration. In order to expand the use of arbitration systems, most countries accept arbitration agreements as an effective tool agreed between parties that express their intent to settle disputes by the arbitration. It is applied equally to selective arbitration agreements and parties can select either arbitration or lawsuit to settle disputes based on the contract intent for selective arbitration agreements. However, China does not admit the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreements. Chinese courts regard selective arbitration agreements as not valid because the contract of a selective arbitration agreement between parties is not a definite expression to only use the arbitration and there is no exclusion of court jurisdiction. Therefore, the study attempts to consider effective conditions for selective arbitration agreements in the Chinese arbitration act and other relevant regulations, and also verifies the judgment by Chinese courts on relevant disputes. As a result, the study explores some problems and implications of Chinese selective arbitration agreements and suggests some precautions in case Korean companies pursue selective arbitration agreements with Chinese enterprises and investors.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.203-222
• /
• 2015

Papers in FTA research have mostly focused on the legal interpretation of the FTA treaties. In this research, more focus was put on the customs laws and related cases delivered in the U.S. federal courts, by which we can analyze the Korea-U.S. FTA in more practical manner to derive the enterprises' solutions to cope with the disputes of FTA preferential duty. The Tariff Act of 1930 is the U.S. customs law to govern FTA preferential duties. The administrative practices with customs duties are coordinated with the FTA rules. The most controversial issue in the U.S. customs law lies in the classification of imported goods for imposition of the customs duties, based on Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. It was found that the U.S. federal courts had been quite favorable to the CBP(U.S. Customs and Border Protections) in litigation with the private importers and exporters. The reason seems to be that the CBP has been dealing with the customs cases so many times, accumulating much experience in execution of the U.S. customs laws, which is likely to make their decisions on customs duties almost free of errors. Therefore, the Korean exporters need to collect the CBP's past cases on the denial of preferential treatment on imported goods and be fully informed of the CBP's policies on the FTA preferential duty treatment.

• Journal of Ginseng Culture
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.21-31
• /
• 2023

Korean ginseng, a special product of Korea, has been one of the most important exports since the era of the Three Kingdoms. However, not many records were kept about ginseng in Korea until the Goryeo Dynasty. This paper summarizes the records relating to international diplomatic relations and trade of ginseng in the Goryeo Dynasty and the medicinal books known to have been published at the time. During the Goryeo Dynasty, ginseng was actively transported to the neighboring countries of Bohai, Song, Wa, Later Jin, and Yuan as a diplomatic gift or as a trade item. Ginseng was mainly exported from Goryeo to these countries, but it was also received as a diplomatic gift from Bohai and Khitan. Arabian merchants came to Byeokran Port, a representative international trading port of Goryeo, and traded ginseng. After the Mongol invasion, the demand for ginseng in the Yuan Dynasty was excessive, which became a big social problem. During the Goryeo Dynasty, several medicinal books were published, including Jejungiphyobang, Eouuichwalyobang, Hyangyakgobang, Samhwajahyangyakbang, Hyangyak Hyemin Gyeongheombang, Hyangyak Gugeupbang, and Biyebaekyobang. Hyangyak Gugeupbang, which was reprinted during the Joseon Dynasty, has been handed down to the present time, although this has not been the case for the originals of the remaining books. Recently, some of the latter books have been restored through the study of the references in various medicinal books of later generations. While the medicinal books used in the royal court showed that a high proportion of the prescriptions containing ginseng, not a single prescription for ginseng has been found in theHyangyak Gugeupbang, which was mainly used for commoners. This is thought to be because ginseng was very rare and expensive at the time, so it was difficult for commoners to access it.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

On 12 October 2017, the English Royal Courts of Justice delivered its decision about air carrier's compensation liability for the flight delay. In the cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v. Condor [2009]. The principal issues were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999. The passengers, the plaintiff, argued that the relevant delay was not that on flight 1 but that suffered at the "final destination". They maintained that there was no exercise by the EU of extraterritorial jurisdiction as the delay on flight 2 was merely relevant to the calculation of the amount of compensation due under the Regulation. The air carrier, the defendant, however argued that the only relevant flights for the purpose of calculating any delay were the first flights (flights 1) out of EU airspace, as only these flights fell within the scope of the Regulation; the connecting flights (flights 2) were not relevant since they were performed entirely outside of the EU by a non-Community carrier. Regarding the issue of what counts as a delay under the Regulation, the CJEU held previously on another precedents that the operating carrier's liability to pay compensation depends on the passenger's delay in arriving at the "final destination". It held that where the air carrier provides a passenger with more than one directly connecting flight to enable him to arrive at their destination, the flights should be taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours' or more delay on arrival; and that in case of directly connecting flights, the final destination is the place at which the passenger is scheduled to arrive at the end of the last component flight. In addition, the Court confirmed that the Regulation applied to flights operated by non-Community carriers out of EU airspace even if flight 1 or flight 2 lands outside the EU, since the Regulation does not require that a flight must land in the EU. Accordingly, the passengers' appeal from the lower Court was allowed, while that of air carrier was dismissed. The Court has come down firmly on the side of the passengers in this legal debate. However, this result is not a great surprise considering the recent trends of EU member states' court decisions in the fields of air transport and consumer protection. The main goal of this article is to review the Court's decision and to search historical trend of air consumer protection especially in EU area.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.239-258
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to examine the legal standards of agreements on the origin of liability and the relevant laws in Korea, to suggest implications for custom authorities and traders wishing to benefit from preferential tariff via FTA, citing the excluded cases of related FTA preferences (court cases and administrative judgments). In order to examine the provisions related to supporting evidence of the origin of liability in FTA, we examined FTAs agreed between Korea and EU, EFTA, ASEAN, U.S., and India relevant to FTA Special Customs Act, court cases and administrative judgements. If verifying the origin to protect the fair trade order impedes to promote utilizing FTA, solutions will need to be suggested. If FTA preference is exempted due to verifying the origin by the import customs authorities, the importer shall pay the income tax calculated in accordance with the general tax rate. This is because the certificate of origin confirmed during verification process is different from the actual origin. In most agreements, the exporter (the producer) shall issue the certificate of origin and since the importer has no other option than obtaining the certificate of origin from the exporter, it may face consequences such as declined credibility from the custom authorities in addition to being disqualified for FTA preferential, if the certificate of origin received from the exporter has flaws. On the other hand, the exporter cannot help but being punished by the customs authorities due to issuing defective origin certificates, but it doesn't have conventionary liabilities for damages incurred to the importer. As a result, importers are forced to pursue legal proceedings to claim damages to exporters or to give up FTA preference. As FTA is increasingly utilized, the number and amount of origin verification in Korea has continuously been increasing while administrative judgements indicates other FTA exporters doesn't seem to gain any support in utilizing FTA like Korea does. It has been 8 years since full-scale supports in FTA launched and now is the time to introduce more efficient and intensive FTA support system In this regard, it is desirable to conduct comprehensive verification on export Next, an institutions that assures FTA-based exports should be established in order to compensate the importer's damages that may occur from disqualified certificate of origin issued by the exporter.