• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제41권
• /
• pp.237-266
• /
• 2009

KORUS-FTA are consist of articles 8. In order to the subjects are, application of a safeguard measures, conditions and limitations, provisional measures, compensation, global safeguard actions, definitions, antidumping and countervailing duties, committee on trade remedies. In especially, regarding application of a safeguard measures under KORUS-FTA, if as a result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under this agreement, an originating good of the other party is being imported into the territory of a party in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions that the imports of such originating good from the other party constitute a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive good, the party may: suspend the further reduction of any rate of customs duty on the good provided for under this agreement; increase the rate of customs duty on the good to a level not to exceed the lesser of: the most-favored-nation (MFN) applied rate of duty on the good in effect at the time the action is taken; and the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect on the day immediately preceding the date this Agreement enters into force; or in the case of a customs duty applied to a good on a seasonal basis, increase the rate of duty to a level that, for each season, does not exceed the lesser of: the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect for the corresponding season immediately preceding the date of application of the safeguard measure; and the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect for the corresponding season immediately preceding the date this agreement enters into force.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제20권4호
• /
• pp.315-330
• /
• 2020

WTO설립과 FTA협정의 증가로 관세는 낮아지고 있으나 무역구제조치와 무역기술장벽(TBT), 위생검역(SPS), 통관규제 등의 비관세조치들이 무역장벽이 되어 자유무역을 제한하고 있다. 수출주도 경제성장을 이룬 우리나라는 증가하는 비관세조치들에 대하여 대응방안을 제시하여야 한다. 비관세조치들은 복잡하고 국가마다 적용되는 것이 다르므로 유형별, 산업별, 국가별로 맞춤형 대응방안을 제시하여야한다. 이를 위해 비관세조치DB를 구축하여야한다. 이런 비관세조치들을 수집하고 분석하여 대응방안을 제시하기 위해서는 정부 산하의 전담조직이 반드시 필요하다. 그리고 비관세조치에 대한 상대국 간의 협의 등과 WTO위원회에서 활동이 중요하다. 또한 비관세조치에 관한 역량과 전문성을 가진 전문 인력 양성이 필요하다. 기존의 연구가 각 국가의 비관세조치현황을 토대로 한 연구나 국제기구의 보고서 등을 통하여 분석하였기 때문에 조치유형의 식별과 국가 간 비교분석에 한계가 있었다. 그러므로 본고는 규제의 식별과 국가 간 비교가 가능한 WTO I-TIP의 비관세조치DB를 바탕으로 분석하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• 수산경영론집
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.83-97
• /
• 1993

Since the last decade, the fisheries industry in Korea has faced many difficulties in terms of comparative economic advantage partly because of marine environmental damage caused by Pollution and coastal reclamation, and partly because of too expensive production factors like labor. In addition, new order of world trade created by Uruguay Round will force the Korean fisheries industry to prepare some remedies including a joint-venture business with China for international compatativeness. As a result, this paper mainly deals with an analysis on feasibility of Sino-Korean joint cooperation in fisheries business. Especially, the Shandong Province in China is expected to take advantage of its geographical proximity to Koreas well as of its abundance in marine natural resources in order to achieve a fast economic growth. Thus, for the next decade to come, it would be very important for the Korean fisheries industry to cope with the international fisheries market by the Sino-Korean joint-venture combining the capital and technology from Korea with the cheap labor and favorable marine environment for aquaculture from China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.81-113
• /
• 2013

The World Trade Organization (WTO) offers remedies for non-compliance by the introduction of compensation or retaliation in the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). There are no the provisions under the WTO DSU and it seems unclear what retaliation is attempting to achieve. Therefore, it is unclear whether the goal of WTO retaliation is to induce compliance or to restore the balance between the rights and the obligations of WTO members. It has been claimed the WTO has a strong dispute settlement system by providing retaliation when the recommendations and rulings of Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) are not complied with. But this seems to be inadequate to bring about effective and timely compliance. Especially there is a problem with free riding by a violating member because the level of retaliation is determined from the expiration of a reasonable period of time, providing an incentive to delay compliance. Also the level of the suspension of concessions or other obligations authorized by the DSB is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment, according to DSU Article 22.4. However, if the member concerned objections to the level of the suspension proposed, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator shall not examine the nature of the suspension of concessions or other obligations to be suspended but shall determine whether the level of such suspension is equivalent to the nullification or impairment. The arbitrator makes an assessment standard of equivalence by comparing the suspension of concessions or other obligations and the nullification or impairment calculated in terms of the amount of trade. But it is necessary that other standards replace the quantitative standards when the level of the nullification or impairment cannot be quantified by concrete damages.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제26권
• /
• pp.35-86
• /
• 2005

International distributorship contract(IDC), as well as international agency contract is a type of contract which is most frequently used in international trade. But one of the main difficulties faced by parties of IDC is the lack of uniform rules for this type of contract. This means that both parties should be careful about each clause of the contract when they draw up it. The ICC prepared model form which incorporates the prevailing practice in international trade, and which aims at protecting and balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. This author examined the several important clauses in this model contract. The purpose of this examination is to help the contracting parties for better understanding and applying them in their actual contracting practice, which based on this model contract. When the supplier and the distributor execute their contract or use ICC Model Contract, they should be careful about the following points: First, some terminologies(like, "territory", "product", "competing products" and "exclusivity") should be clearly defined in their contract. Second, regarding the supplier's functions including "supplying products" and the distributor's responsibility including "undertaking not to compete", and "attaining guaranteed minimum targets", both parties should make clear about each party's right and obligation as well as one party's remedies available when other party makes breach of its obligation. Third, both parties should examine the relationship between the "exclusivity" or "sole" and competition law which is regarded as a mandatory rule in the territory. Forth, when both parties lay down "termination clause" in the contract, they should make clear about the indemnity in case of termination. Fifth, as there is not uniform law for the distributorship contract, it is inevitable to choose any local law as an applicable law in case of litigation. So both parties should keep in mind to insert arbitration clause to avoid the application of the local law. Besides, both parties should consider their individual and specific circumstances and try to reflect them in their contract by Annex I to XI attached to the end of model contract.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권4호
• /
• pp.209-227
• /
• 2006

This paper analyse current interpretation of the "causal link" that in particular, focuses principally on the so-called "non-attribution" requirement of Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement. The safeguard measures are justified as a temporary economic adjustment to harm that is caused by an increase in imports. The problem with this justification is that there are other kinds of economic forces that may injure domestic industries, such as changes in consumer tastes, government spending or a lack thereof, and economic downturns. These problems do not justify government-imposed remedies. When factors therefore other than increased imports are causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time, such injury shall not be attributed to increased imports. The Appellate Body stressed that a contribution of third-party imports to the existence of serious injury must be sufficiently clear as to establish the existence of the causal link required, it found that Article 4.2(b) does not suggest that increased imports be the sole cause of the serious injury, or that other factors causing injury must be excluded from the determination of serious injury. The interest in separation is to ensure that a measure is not applied to remedy harm not caused by imports, but this basic point assumes that the harm is distinguishable in the first place. It also assumes that the safeguard is designed to respond to harm caused by imports. In fact safeguards were never intended to respond to this kind of unfair trade, but rather to provide whatever emergency relief might assist an ailing domestic industry if imports happened to be a part of that injury. The Appellate Body's insistence in breaking cause and effect down to minutia in the non-attribution analysis seems to be so overly intricate that it conflicts with it's broader focus on evaluating factors that effect harm on the industry as a whole.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.81-98
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This study aims to compare the requirements under the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) and the Korean Civil Act (KCA) regarding the buyer's right to require the delivery of substitute goods. The buyer's right to demand substitute delivery not only protect them from the seller's breach of contract but also preserves the contractual bond between the parties by providing an opportunity for sellers to protect their goodwill and circumvent the extreme remedy of avoidance. However, as substitute delivery entails additional efforts and costs for return and re-shipment, this right should not be allowed in every case of defect. Additionally, unlike the CISG, the KCA contains no specific provision related to the requirements for claiming substitute delivery. Therefore, it would be meaningful to examine and compare what requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right in relation to non-conforming goods under the CISG and the KCA. Design/methodology - We conducted a comparative study of the requirements under the CISG and the KCA regarding the buyer's right to require delivery of substitute goods given a seller's delivery of non-conforming goods. Additionally, we referred to the opinions from the CISG Advisory Council, the draft of the KCA amendment, and related precedents, mainly focusing on the existence and severity of defects, reasonableness, and timely notice and requests as the major requirements for substitute delivery. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the CISG provides more detailed requirements about the right to require delivery of substitute goods; by contrast, the KCA does not stipulate any such requirement. Thus, specific requirements for substitute delivery should be included when amending the KCA. Second, the CISG attempts to minimize overlapping and conflict with other remedies by specifying detailed requirements for the delivery of substitutes. Third, both the CISG and KCA require reasonableness for substitute delivery. Originality/value - Although there are no explicit legal requirements for substitute delivery under the KCA, there has been relatively little discussion of this issue to date. Therefore, the findings of our study can guide future revisions of the KCA to fill this loophole. Moreover, the recently released CISG Advisory Council opinion that clarifies the continuing confusion and debate, can help distinguish which remedy is suitable for a particular case. It may provide practical advice for businesspeople in international trade as well as legal implications for the future development of the KCA.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제22권
• /
• pp.71-106
• /
• 2004

Todays, L/C transactions in international trade are governed by UCP 500 and eUCP. But UCP 500 and eUCP do not cover all legal problem of L/C transactions. Therefore choice of laws in international L/C transactions are occurred. U.S.A. has an enacted law (UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit) to govern L/C transaction. But other countries has no special enacted law to govern L/C transaction. The reason is that there are difference between legal attitude of U.S.A. and other countries. American law considers L/C as a special device made by merchants. Therefore U.S.A. applies UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit instead of general contract law. UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit includes provisions of warranties, remedies, and so on that UCP 500 and eUCP do not include. But the liabilities of the Issuing Bank on the wrongful dishonor in L/C transaction is very important legal problem. First, this study is to justify concepts of honor and dishonor, and sufficient conditions for dishonor of the issuing bank. in UCC. Second, this study is to examine closely the liabilities of the Issuing Bank on the wrongful dishonor in L/C transaction. Third, this study is suggest distinctive features on the Liabilities to wrongful dishonor of the issuing bank in UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit and our trader's matters to be attended to L/C transactions governed by UCC.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.193-213
• /
• 2000

The CISG has been legislated for playing roles as uniform rules which govern international sale of goods. The job of getting unification of the diverse domestic legal systems required almost half century of work. In the process of making the Convention some rules resulted from compromises of nation's relevant interests. The Convention, however, promoted both the legal certainty and harmonization in international trade in that the uniform rules suggest the appropriate resolution to the legal problems in the course of concluding a contract as well as in remedies for breach of contract. This paper focuses systematically on the scope of applicability of the CISG. The Convention deals with contracts for the international sale of goods. However, it does not apply to all kinds of the international sale of goods. The CISG confines the sphere of applicability to a certain type of sales. First of all, the CISG is limited to those contracts having been concluded between a particular group of persons, which is called a personal aspect of applicability. Secondly, the CISG covers a specific category of sales, which is called a material aspect of applicability. Thirdly, the CISG are concluded within a particular period of time, which is called a temporal aspect of applicability. Lastly, the CISG is limited to contracts falling within a given territorial sphere, which is called a territorial aspect of applicability.