• 한국정보통신학회논문지
• /
• 제14권7호
• /
• pp.1729-1736
• /
• 2010

비상업용 정부선박은 국가가 소유 운영하는 선박으로 군함과 마찬가지로 타국 재판관할권으로부터 면제된다. 이는 전통 국제법상의 주권면제이론에 따른 것으로, 국제법상 국가 행위나 재산은 타국의 재판권으로부터 면제되기 때문이다. 주권면제는 판례나 국가관행을 통해 확립된 일반 국제법상의 원칙이다. 문제는 우리 관할수역에서의 타국 비상업용 정부선박에 대한 관할권 제한은 해양안보적 측면에서 상당한 불안요인이 된다는 점이다. 왜냐하면 불순한 의도로 우리 관할수역에 들어와도 주권면제가 인정되기 때문에 그 대응에는 한계가 있을 수밖에 없다. 국제법이나 국제관례를 벗어난 관할권 집행은 국제사회의 비난은 물론 국가책임을 발생시키기 때문에 관련 국제규범의 정확한 이해 및 적용을 통한 합법적 권한행사가 중요하다.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.156-162
• /
• 2020

20세기 초부터 비상업용 정부선박의 법적 지위에 대한 검토와 법제화가 이루어졌다. 특히 전통적 국제법상의 절대적 주권면제이론에 대한 비판이 발생하고, 이에 대한 대체 이론으로 제한적 주권면제이론이 등장하면서 주권면제이론은 더욱 구체화 되었다. 국제관습법 및 국제해양법에서는 군함과 함께 비상업용 정부선박에 대한 주권면제를 규정하고 있다. 이러한 주권면제와 관련하여 고려되어야 하는 것이 우리나라 국립대학의 실습선이다. 우리나라 국립대학은 고급해기사 양성 및 어업 실습 등의 교육목적으로 실습선 및 조사선을 건조하여 운용하고 있다. 이러한 실습선은 국내 관할수역 뿐만 아니라 타국의 관할수역 및 공해까지를 활동범위로 하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 타국의 항구에도 입항하고 있다. 따라서 국제법상 국립대학 실습선의 법적지위를 명확하게 하는 것은 국제 항행에 있어 중요한 요소 중에 하나라고 할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 실습선이 어떠한 법적 지위를 누리느냐에 대해서는 단순히 답할 수 없는 요소들이 다수 존재한다. 이에 본 논문은 국제법상 비상업용 정부선박의 개념 및 의의에 대해 살펴보고, 국립대학 실습선이 이와 일치하는지에 대해 검토하였다. 또한 전통 국제법상의 주권면제 범위와 현행 국제협약상의 주권면제에 대한 규정을 살펴봄으로써 우리나라 국립대학 실습선이 해양에서 누릴 수 있는 주권면제의 범위에 대해 살펴보았다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2014

This article examines the regime for the recognition, enforcement and execution of arbitral awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID). The effectiveness of international arbitration depends on the degree of finality of the award and the ease with which the award may be enforced by the prevailing part. The ICSID Convention provides for rigorous finality and seeks to establish optimal preconditions for the enforcement of awards in manner that distinguishes ICSID from other international arbitral regimes. As with other classes of disputes subject to judical or arbitral jurisdiction, most ICSID cases settle. In the cases that do proceed to award, participants must understand what will happen if the losing party fails to comply with the award voluntarily and the prevailing party takes the award through phases known as "recognition", "enforcement" and "execution". Investors should assess possible execution before finalizing investments and certainly before they initiate collection proceedings on ICSID awards. An investor with a monetary award in hand should attempt to locate assets of the losing State and then obtain comparative law advice to identify jurisdictions that allow attachment of at least certain categories of sovereign assets.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.313-328
• /
• 2013

Today FTA extends over the world and Korea as a main member of international trade is no exception. In the past Korea, as the developing countries, has made endlessly effort to induce foreign investment from foreign enterprise and/or government to be a truly OECD countries today and made it. Korea's trade economy was reached 1 trillion dollars in 2012. Now we have to find a new way to produce, process, procure goods from foreign investment and also need to protect our profit and/or rights within foreign judicial territory. There are two method to protect foreign enterprise or government. First they rely on general principles in WTO or Bilateral Investment Treaty that the principle of equality, national treatment, and most-favored-nation treatment, you can create a predictable environment to protect foreign enterprise and/or government. Second they need to incorporate contractual clauses in their agreement such as stabilization clause, force majeure, arbitration, governing law or sovereign immunity. Of course there are many things left behind to consider I hope it will be helpful to those who prepare foreign investment contract.

• 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.