• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.45-58
• /
• 2014

It is a well recognised rule in international law that the property of aliens cannot be taken. The question of whether indirect expropriation and government regulatory measures require compensation is an important issue in international investment law. Bilateral investment treaties and other investment agreements contain brief and general indirect expropriation provisions. These focus on the effect of government action and do not address the distinction between compensable and non-compensable regulatory actions. It is generally accepted that a state is not responsible for loss of property or for other economic disadvantages resulting from bona fide general taxation accepted as within the police power of states, provided it is not discriminatory. Yukos Oil Company is a Russian oil and gas company engaged in exploration, refining, and marketing activities. It is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. Yukos Oil Company has its production operations in Russia and markets its products in Europe. An international tribunal ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish investors for the losses they suffered when Russia seized the Yukos Oil Company on July 26, 2012. This has been the subject of several judicial proceedings and academic publications. This paper explores which circumstances do not lead to taxation amounting to expropriation. The author suggests that under the following circumstances, taxation would not amount to expropriation. First, taxation should be non-discriminatory. Also a lawful exercise of the taxation powers of governments would not amount to expropriation.

• 전자통신동향분석
• /
• 제33권6호
• /
• pp.139-153
• /
• 2018

The explosive interest in block chain, which was triggered by Bitcoin in 2009, is leading to substantial investment and the development of block chain technology. There is no dispute among experts that block chain will be the next generation of innovation. However, despite the high expectations for block chains, the related technology still has certain limitations. In addition to improving issues such as a low transaction throughput, inefficient agreement algorithms, and an inflexible governance structure, it is necessary to solve various problems for commercialization and full-scale spreading owing to the trilemma problem among the scalability, security, and decentralization. Under this situation, identification of the technology characteristics according to the generation is helpful for the development of the core technology requirements and commercialization blueprint in establishing an R&D direction. Therefore, in this article, the development of blockchain technology is divided into generations and analyzed in terms of the operational structure, consensus algorithm, governance, scalability, and security.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.3-49
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the settlement mechanism of the commercial disputes between the South and the North of Korea. Also, this paper is to make research on the south-north Korea's cooperative tasks to promote the disputes settlement, including the operation and management of the South-North Arbitration Commission as well as the enactment of the South-North Arbitration Rules. To realize the spirit of the South-North Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000, the Authorities concerned of the South and the North of Korea have reached an agreement titled 'Agreement on Settlement Procedure of Commercial Disputes' on December of the same year. As the follow-up measures of the said Agreement, the South-North Authorities have signed an another agreement called 'Agreement on Organization and Administration of the South-North Arbitration Commission' on October, 2003, which is becoming vital importance for settlement of the commercial disputes between south and north Korea including the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. Gaeseong, a city surrounded by the North Korean military and a symbol of inter-Korean tensions, is now turning into a peace zone where thousands of North and South Koreans are working side by side. The Gaeseong Industrial Complex project, driven by the logic and economic necessity of cooperation, has been steadily moving forward since the North designated it as a special economic zone and has enacted related laws and regulations for its development. Under the situation, the matter of primary concern is how to organize and conduct the Arbitration Commission for the prompt and effective settlement of the south-north commercial disputes. First of all, the South-North Authorities should recognize that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution such as arbitration and mediation to be made by the Arbitration Commission would promote the orderly growth and encouragement of the south-north trade and investment. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) should be designated as the arbitral institution of the south Korean side under the Agreement on Organization and Administration of the South-North Arbitration Commission. The KCAB is the only authorized arbitral organization in South Korea to settle all kinds of commercial disputes at home and abroad.

• 아태비즈니스연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.117-133
• /
• 2019

This paper examines the most-favored-nation treatment clause on the BITs concluded by China and examines the attitudes of China on the application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs by period as the scope of arbitration increases. Moreover, this study pointed out the problems that would be exposed if the most-favored-nation treatment clause applies to ISDs and then also suggested solutions. The conclusions of this study are as follows; if the Chinese government strictly restricts the applicable expansion of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the dispute settlement procedure by considering only the position of the capital importing country, it implies a contradiction against the development trend of the arbitration system related to international investment disputes. Of course, in order to protect the rights of Chinese investors investing abroad, expanding the applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs procedure unconditionally may have a negative impact under China's dual status of being a capital-importing country and a capital-exporting country. Therefore, China should clearly define the scope of application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause, the completion of the local remedy for the host country in cases of BIT to be concluded in the future or amended, and also clearly define that the most-favored-nation treatment clause should not be retroactively applied into BITs already concluded as an exception of applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제55호
• /
• pp.193-237
• /
• 2018

최근 우리정부를 상대로 제기되고 있는 ISD 소송이 갑자기 증가하면서 소송의 진행상황에 따라 국내적으로 큰 혼란이 초래될 가능성이 크다. 이는 ISD 소송에서 외국인 투자자가 우리나라를 상대로 청구한 손해배상액이 수조원에 이른 경우가 대부분이기 때문이다. 심리가 이미 완료된 '론 스타사건'이나 최근 중재신청을 한 '엘리엇/메이슨 사건'의 소송결과가 나오면 소송의 승패에 따라 국제투자협정에 포함된 ISD 소송제도 자체의 폐기를 주장하는 여론도 분명히 생겨날 것이다. 전 세계적으로 체결되고 있는 대부분의 BIT, FTA에 일반적으로 포함되고 있는 ISD조항은 다수의 투자분쟁사례에서 보여주듯이 우리 정부의 공공정책을 제한하는 요소가 될 수 있다는 점은 분명하다. 하지만 이 제도가 반대로 우리나라의 해외투자자들을 현지국의 위법 부당한 조치로부터 보호할 수 있는 장치라는 점에서 ISD라는 소송제도 자체를 부정적인 시각으로만 볼 필요는 없는 것으로 판단된다. 우리나라는 이미 많은 국가들과 FTA와 BIT를 통해 ISD 소송제도를 허용하고 있고, 또한 새로운 국가들과도 FTA를 체결하기 위한 협상이 진행되는 상황이므로 향후 우리 정부의 공공정책에 대해 외국인 투자자가 ISD 소송절차에 회부할 가능성은 더 크게 증가할 것이다. 우리정부는 ISD 소송에 대비하기 위하여 중앙정부의 소관 부처에 정부 실무가와 민간 학자, 법조인 등 전문가 그룹으로 구성된 대응팀을 발족하여 ISD 소송에서 이슈가 되는 주요 법적 쟁점들을 검토하여 법리를 구축하고, 분쟁이 발생하면 동 대응팀을 가동하여 법리적으로 소송을 지원하고 소송의 증가에 대응할 수 있는 시스템을 갖출 필요가 있다. 특히 국제투자규범과 ISD 제도의 중요성을 인식하지 못하고 있는 지방자치단체 및 각종 공공기관들이 공공정책을 입안하고 시행하는 전 과정이 BIT, FTA 등 국제투자규범에 부합할 수 있도록 관련 정보를 공유하고, 교육함으로써 사전에 ISD 소송을 예방하기 위한 대책을 마련할 필요가 있다.

• 한국안전학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.105-110
• /
• 2012

Although reinforcement of work intensity caused by the recent prosperity of shipbuilding businesses and the steady increasing of results which produces orders has difficulties with heavy workload, unique work circumstance in shipbuilding industry where main and subcontractor do the job together is not easy to manage its safety systematically. According to KOSHA(Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency), there were 2, 587 deaths of 95,806 disaster victims a year on average for late 6 years(2003-2008), therein 36,605 disaster victims and 646 death in manufacture where shipbuilding have 2,287 victims, 6.25% of total disaster victims and 45 deaths, 6.97%. Moreover it shows much higher accident rate in shipbuilding industry in Korea than well developed countries in this industry as Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and so it does about 3 to 10 times higher in case of death. Compared to Japan with a shipbuilding competition of orders received system, 2 times and 2.3 times higher for each and it is more than 2 times higher than accident rate of all domestic industries. These increasing of disaster result in a labor-management dispute and it is necessary that more positive efforts and investments because there occurs blind spot, neglected industry safety and health management by lack of them, Therefore this study, for the effective safety and health management of shipbuilding industry, attempts to analyze risk on kinds of ships and budget needed in safety management through classifying ships that are being made recently by three dominate major companies. For this, we carried out a survey and interview targeting experts related to shipbuilding industry and used AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) for result analysis. It is considered that cost of safety and health management will be spent more effectively on the results about risk on kinds of ships and budget needed in safety management in the study and that this study can contribute to decreasing disasters in shipbuilding industry.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2020

The Scope of Application of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and Foreign Investment Act This article examines whether the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and the Foreign Investment Act of North Korea apply to South Korean parties or companies. This article analyzes laws and agreements related to economic cooperation between South Korea and North Korea. Furthermore, this article compares and evaluates laws related to foreign investment and enacted in North Korea. Now, North Korea's door is closed due to economic sanctions against it, but it will be opened soon. Thus, this article prepares for the future opening of North Korea's markets. Is there a rule of laws in North Korea or just a ruler? Are there laws in North Korea? North Korea has enacted a number of legislation to attract foreign investors, referring to those Chinese laws. For example, North Korea enacted the Foreigner Investment Act, the Foreigner Company Act, the Foreign Investment Bank Act, the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, the Foreign Economic Contract Act, the International Trade Act, and the Free Economy and Trade Zone Act, among others. Article 2 (2) of the Foreign Investment Law of North Korea states, "Foreign investors are corporations and individuals from other countries investing in our country." It is interpreted that South Korea is not included in the "other countries" of this definition. According to many mutual agreements signed by South Korea and North Korea, the relationship between the two Koreas is a special relation inside the Korean ethnic group. An arbitration between a South Korean party and a North Korean party has the characteristics of both domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. If the South Korea and North Korea Commercial Arbitration Commission or the Kaesong Industrial Complex Arbitration Commission is not established, the possibility of arbitration by the Chosun International Trade Arbitration Commission, established under North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, should be examined. There have been no cases where the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act is applied to disputes between parties of South Korea and North Korea. It might be possible to apply the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act by recognizing the "foreign factor" of a dispute between the South Korean party and North Korean party. It is necessary to raise legislative clarifications by revising the North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act as to whether Korean parties or companies are included in the scope of this Act's application. Even if it is interpreted that South Korean parties or companies are not included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, disputes between South Korean companies and North Korean companies can be resolved by foreign arbitration institutes such as CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong, or SIAC in Singapore. Such arbitration awards could be enforced in North Korea pursuant to Article 64 of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. This is because the arbitration awards of foreign arbitration institutes are included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. The matter is how to enforce the North Korean laws when a North Korean party or North Korean government does not abide by the laws or their contracts. It is essential for North Korea to join the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2019

In order to achieve full-scale economic cooperation between North Korea and South Korea, the Gaesong Industrial Complex should reopen first. In this case, the Inter-Korean commercial arbitration system should be clearly established to effectively resolve the disputes arising in the special economic zones of the Gaesong Industrial Complex. Even though the Inter-Korean Investment Security Agreement, the Agreement on the Resolution of Commercial Disputes between North Korea and South Korea, the Agreement on the Formation and Operation of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee, and the Agreement on the Formation and Operation of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee in the Gaesong Industrial District are in place, specific arbitration procedure is not concretely agreed upon and realized between the two Koreas. Therefore, the realization of commercial arbitration between them led by the Ministry of Unification or the government should be accomplished. In addition, it is necessary to consider the administrative trial or administrative litigation system in order to deal with administrative disputes that are not subject to commercial arbitration. Lastly, discussions on legal integration between the two Koreas should continue, focusing on the special economic zone of the Gaesong Industrial Complex, in order to prevent integration from being hindered by a different culture for a long time.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2009

Nowadays, Alternative Dispute Resolution in terms of reconciliation, arbitration, and mediation is in the spotlight as a try to overcome the limits of a lawsuit as well as the judicial reform. Since many articles have studied ADR in America, Germany, Japan and the like which developed the system in advance, this article compares ADR in major Asian countries including China, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, India, and Vietnam etc. introducing ADR organizations as well. On the matter of vigorous trade and investment between Asian countries currently, it seems inevitable not to have consequential disputes through international exchange. Thus it will be very useful to know the law to resolve the conflict between the countries involved. This article is written to help to resolve the disputes in Asian countries and provide research materials to develop ADR in Korea by comparing the ones in major Asian countries. In addition, the comparative study of ADR in Asian countries should be continued to find the model which best fits in Asia as well as to nurture talent.