• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.141-165
• /
• 2007

This study aims to make a contribution to the promotion of trade and economic development of South Korea, and, at the same time, call attention to the increasing trend of investment agreements concluded within Free Trade Agreements (FTA) by examining theoretically FTAs and dispute resolution and investigating systematically the conclusion procedure of agreements, and the system, institutions, and jurisdiction of dispute resolution, and presenting these findings to the government and investors involved. The most problematic aspect in the legal process of arbitration involving disputes over investment is that of arguments concerning the right of jurisdiction. When a dispute arises, even though an investor files for arbitration at an ICSID institution, the parties become involved in another energy-consuming argument even before proceeding to the hearing and decision of the original plan in cases in which the respondent of the dispute files an objection to the decision rights of the arbitral tribunal. As the main basis for this type of plea, the point of non-existence of jurisdiction is first raised where the applicable dispute does not fall under the range of investments defined in individual investment contracts or investment agreements such as a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). To avoid an open-ended definition of investment for the range of investments, articles concerning investments in the FTA and NAFTA between Canada and the USA adopt the limited closed-list method. Article 96 of the FTA between Japan and Mexico applied the same abovementioned method of limited form of definition regarding range of investments and concluded BITs between member countries of APEC applied a similar method as well. Instead of employing the previously used inclusive definition, the BITs concluded between countries of Latin America and the USA are equipped with limited characteristics of an investment. Furthermore, to correspond with this necessary condition the three following requirements are needed : 1) fixed investment funding; 2) expected profits resulting from such investments; 3) and the existence of fixed risk bearing.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.481-507
• /
• 2009

Along with continuous increase in international investments encouraged by wide spread bilateral investment treaties (BIT) including free trade agreements (FTA), international investment disputes have been also increasing. This means that a host State, an importer of foreign investments, and a investor who exports its investment to foreign State, need to take measures to prevent international disputes arising from international investment or to prepare for the arbitration for resolving the disputes. Under these circumstances, this paper compares ICSID arbitration rules and UNCITRAL arbitration rules in respect of (i) the institution of arbitration, (ii) the appointment of arbitrators and the composition of arbitral tribunal, and (iii) the procedures for, and the form of, arbitral awards. On base of this comparison, this paper further suggests certain practical issues that the host State's government and the foreign investors should be aware of in order to be ready for the resolutions of disputes by ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.175-230
• /
• 2016

The controversies that have surrounded the negotiation of both the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have underlined the difficulties arising out from the adoption of a truly common EU investment policy. Non-governmental organizations have called into question transparency and legitimacy of international investment arbitration during the negotiations. The article presents a reflection about current developments of the EU investment policy addressing, in particular, the criticisms towards the whole investor-to-State system and the EU's efforts in developing a "tailor-made" investment agreement and Investor-to-State Dispute resolution system. Along these lines, the article critically assesses the recently announced proposal for the establishment of an 'Investment Court System' put forward by the EU during the TTIP negotiations.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.141-158
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to examine the validity or effectiveness of the Arbitration Clause such as Model Clause I, and to confirm how other issues such as arbitrable "investment", appointment of arbitrators and law governing the agreement be reflected in the agreement. However, the parties should be sure that the arbitration clause is valid if they have checked whether, for their particular situation, the ICSID Centre has jurisdiction. For the validity of the Arbitration Clause, first the host country and the country which the investor belong to must be "contracting states" to the ICSID Convention. Second, the specific consent to arbitrate must be expressed in writing in the investment contract or in a national investment law or in an investment protection treaty. The issue of "nationality" of an other contracting state is determined by the place of incorporation or the location of the head office. In case the parties have doubts about a valid consent to arbitrate, Art. 41 of the ICSID Convention provides, regarding ICSID jurisdiction, that the tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. It follows that ICSID Arbitration has an autonomous and exclusive character. As a consequence, domestic courts may not interfere with the question of ICSID's jurisdiction, which is called as "rule of abstention".

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.89-121
• /
• 2015

Investor-State Dispute Settlement(ISDS) grants a foreign investor the right to access an international arbitrator, if he believes actions taken by a host government are in breach of commitments made in an investment agreement or an investment treaty. The arbitration procedure of ICSID is made specifically to resolve investment disputes, so most of investment disputes have been settled in accordance with the procedure. Owing to limitation of dispute settlements through the ICSID arbitration procedure, several investment dispute conciliation schemes have been emerged as alternatives. In the case of a conciliation, the conciliation procedure will be in progress based on arbitrary agreement between parties, and if both parties agree on a conciliation program, then the arbitrary execution rate is relatively higher than that of arbitration procedures. In addition, it is evaluated that the time duration of conducting a conciliation procedure is in general rather short in 8 to 24months, and its incumbent cost is also rather inexpensive. Most of all, through amicable settlement of a dispute between a foreign investor and a host state, the foreign investor may continue his investment activities without a hitch, while the host state may invite more investment without any risk of losing its external credibility. In conclusion, it is desirable to lead any investment dispute between a foreign investor and a host state settle in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure as specified in the relevant investment agreement. In addition, to make the foreign investor continue his investment activities, it will be necessary to provide a separate investment dispute conciliation system aside from such arbitration procedures to cope any unexpected incident flexibly.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.155-180
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to examine the major elements of Arbitration Clause in international investment contracts and to help the investor, especially foreign investors, considering these elements when they draft the contracts. First of all, to describe the extent of the arbitrable issues broadly is very important by using the phrase such as "disputes in connection with". Furthermore in order to be enforceable, the issues must be a subject-matter to be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the laws of the place of arbitration and the law application to the merits of the disputes (N.Y. Convention, Art. II). Second, the appointment of the arbitrators usually shall be based on the principle of freedom of contract. If the parties do not agree on the appointment, it is decided in accordance with the arbitration rules of the institution by the tribunal. Third, the procedural rules of the arbitration are the arbitration rules of the arbitration institution in case of institution arbitration, unless otherwise agreed. Forth, what is the most importance element of Arbitration Clause is the place of arbitration. In this case, also the principle of freedom of contract has priority. Unless otherwise agreed, Washington is the place of arbitration in case of ICSID Arbitration, but in case of ICC Arbitration, neutral third country may be the place of arbitration. However in case of ad hoc arbitration, both parties should indicate the place. If not, the whole arbitration may be paralysed by an uncooperative party. Besides the major elements, I examined the relation between the arbitration clause and award enforcement in terms of sovereign immunity. The enforcement of awards in the field of state contracts many encounter the problem of the sovereign immunity, which means that the State itself or the State enterprise is the contract partner. To avoid the this problems, it is advisable for the parties insert the clause such as ICSID Model Clause XIX.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.137-163
• /
• 2018

Efficiency in the arbitration proceedings and finality of arbitral awards have been key attractive features of arbitration. While finality of awards is due to the fact that there is no appeals mechanism in arbitration, other recourses that are available against arbitral awards threaten the integrity of finality of arbitral awards. This article examines some of these recourses, such as, setting aside of arbitral awards pursuant to the UNCITRAL Model Law, scrutiny of draft awards by arbitration institutions, and annulment proceedings of ICSID Convention awards and discusses the implications of these measures in relation to assuring finality of arbitral awards in international commercial and investment arbitration cases. In order to more effectively respect the disputing parties' autonomy in choosing arbitration, and also to give as much deference to arbitral tribunals' decisions and their discretion in reaching their decisions, it is proposed that an official appellate mechanism would be preferred over the undermining of finality of arbitral awards that have been taking place through the currently available exclusive recourses against arbitral awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.51-69
• /
• 2008

The financial industry in which arbitration is most frequently resorted to so as to resolve disputes is the sector related to the securities industry. Most securities related disputes are raised from broker-dealer controversies which is not new in the Republic of Korea. The disputes between securities brokers and customers are very frequently settled by arbitration in the United States. But the arbitration in the securities area may deprive investors from securities regulation's protection. Introducing the United States' Federal Supreme Courts cases, the author explores the logic of how the pre-dispute arbitration agreement compatible with Securities regulations. However, the author insist the South Korea should more careful in accepting pre-dispute arbitration contract in securities area. Mostly because of the lack of more specific way to secure substantive fairness in securities arbitration. Also the author worries about the possibility of prevailing pre-dispute arbitration agreement in all of the securities investment contract without any other choices, or securities laws' protection. But the author also suggests to introduce public securities arbitration system of the States, and also insists the way to secure substantive fairness, or the application of securities regulations in securities arbitrations. Which may be the pre-requirements for the pre-dispute arbitration agreement in securities investment contract.