• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.280-291
• /
• 2021

Background: Based on the fact that the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency is a public institution established by social demands for medical disputes, this study reviews the publicness of public organization and discusses its policy implications. Methods: Through Moore's strategic triangle, which consists of legitimacy and support, public value and operational capacity, the process of creating public value is examined. For the analysis, case studies were conducted using related literature data from 2012, when the agency was established, to the present. Results: As a result of the analysis, first, the related law examined in the operational capability has been revised dozens of times, but the revised law has its own contradictions and limitations. The human resource system is also being improved, but there is a problem with the fairness and reliability of the arbitration process, especially due to the limitations of the appraiser system. Second, in terms of legitimacy and support, a regional gap occurred despite efforts to improve accessibility through the expansion of the organization. And the arbitration agency failed to reconcile conflicts caused by stakeholders' perception of each other as a trade-off relationship. Third, the public value result shows that, despite many explicit (statistical) achievements, citizens' use of the past dispute resolution means (litigation) has not decreased. Likewise, the perception of value makers (citizens) is important for creating public value as an invisible result, but it has not yet been formally investigated, so the performance can not be recognized. Conclusion: While the organization's efforts for continuous change and improvement are encouraging, it is not perceived as a better means of resolving disputes and improving quality of services. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the institutional design centered on value creators.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.283-303
• /
• 2013

When a trade conflict arises related to an officially supported export credit programme, The World Trade Organization(WTO), decides on whether the programme is a forbidden subsidy stipulated in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures(the ASCM Agreement). Korea was taken to the WTO panel two times for the export credit programme. One is the semiconductor case in 2002 and the other was the shipbuilding disputes in 2004. And, In 2012, the U.S. Commerce Department ruled K-SURE's export insurance for Korean refrigerator manufacturers as a forbidden subsidy even if the case was not taken to the WTO. This paper examines the significance of export credit programmes on the WTO ASCM Agreement and discusses how to operate these programmes so they would not infringe upon the Agreement by analyzing the actual cases of WTO subsidy conflicts that involved Korean enterprises in relation to export credit programmes for the purpose of determining the related issues and impacts. From this research the results were as follows: First, on whether export credit is a prohibited subsidy, the deciding factor was whether a benefit has been conferred to the beneficiary. On the presence of a benefit, the WTO panel used market benchmarks as the main criteria. Thus, official export credit agencies(ECAs) should be careful not to provide export credit support which had been granted to the beneficiary at better than market terms. Second, in the case of export credit, the special status of ECA as a public body receiving government support itself does not constitute a subsidy. However, caution must be taken not to provide export credit that may lead to WTO ASCM subsidy conflicts involving a certain exporter or industry by setting up clear and valid regulations and fair work processes in the operation of export credit programmes. Third, item (j) of Annex I cannot be interpreted reversely as this item is for interpreting the presence of a prohibited subsidy, not the presence of a benefit. Thus, an export credit program that confers a financial contribution, a benefit and specificity, could qualify as a prohibited subsidy. Fourth, ECAs not only have to maintain long-term account balance but also introduce additional measures to meet this long-term balance such as a clear and systematic premium system. Finally, export credit programmes that are not defined in item (j) of Annex I of the ASCM Agreement would not deemed as an prohibited export subsidy as long as the continued support of the programmes are not being forced.

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.65-81
• /
• 2004

Foreign direct investment (FDI) by firms has various motives in terms of the strategy for firms' long-term growth. This research uses the case study of Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama to analyze the motives of the Korean auto industry's FDI in the U.S. and the locational factors that determined the selection of the site. This paper starts from the question of why Hyundai made the decision to invest in the U.S., which is not favorable in terms of production cost, especially considering that its exports to the U.S. have been on the increase. The results indicate that the strongest motive for the decision to invest in the U.S. was to ameliorate the trade friction between Korea and the U.S. Given that Hyundai depends on the U.S. market to a large extent for its exports, the foremost motive was to use local production in order to reduce the serious trade imbalance in the automobile sector between Korea and the U.S. in order that trade friction with the U.S. may be avoided and causes for trade disputes may be reduced. Other motives such as improving the access to local consumers were of secondary importance. After the selection of the country in which to invest, however, various factors were considered in the decision regarding the location of the plant, and incentives by local governments ultimately played a key role in this decision. The results imply that the Korean manufacturing industry's investment in the U.S. cannot be explained by traditional FDI theories and instead was greatly driven by a strategic defensive motive. In addition, the results confirm that the design of an appropriate incentive structure by host governments is important for attracting FDI.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.311-330
• /
• 2006

As issues of education, employment and so on, the medical issue is one of the hot spots of society in China today. The health system reform which was pushed ahead after China's Revolution and open to the outside world hasn't received great progress. Many actual problems haven't been solved, for example it is difficult and expensive to see a doctor. With the development of the economy and society, the citizen's legal consciousness has gradually risen. They make a claim for better medical service. At the same time, the number of the disputes of medical care arises annually. China has sped up the opening of service trade for fulfilling promises of entry the WTO since 2001. China has already opened many service trade fields, including medical field. From the domestic perspective, there are many problems in domestic medical department. From the international perspective, China's present medical level falls behind the world advanced medical level. Under this background, it is a bold act for China to open the medical service field to foreign investors. Today, a huge medical service market is developed in China. However, the government's investment to medical devices and the financing channels is limited. Therefore, it is inevitable that individuals, social organizations and foreign investors invest to the medical market. In view of the situation, Chinese government issued a series of relevant laws and rules. In recent years, many multinational companies, consortiums, charitable institutions, enterprises and individuals establish various medical institutions in China. But there are rare research in the actuality and legal subject of foreign investment to Chinese medical market. Hence, it is necessary to realize the actuality of foreign investment to Chinese medical market, to familiar with the elements and procedure of establishing foreign joint and cooperative medical institution. Meanwhile, analyzing the existing problems and posing the legal subject have important theoretic and practical value.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.301-323
• /
• 2011

There have been 20 cases of trade disputes related to zeroing in WTO. In these day, it was judged that the use of zeroing in the calculation of dumping margin is against ADA. Recently, WTO decided in favor of Korea in regards to Korea's stainless steel products on January, 2011. There finally was a high possibility of zeroing being changed. In December 2010, the American government announced it would revise zeroing system through an federal register. Many researchers, such as Linsey and Ikenson(2000), William W. Nye(2009) already clarified through empirical analysis that no use of zeroing leads to a large decline in the margin of dumping. If zeroing is abolished in the future, the margin of dumping imposed on Korea's stainless steel will drop sharply. According to this empirical study, the margin of dumping in 6 stainless steel among 12 products commodities subject to Anti Dumping regulation from US reduced below de-minimis or 3%. These stainless steel is likely to be excluded from the Anti Dumping regulation through review investigation and Korea's export of steel to America is expected to be increased steeply in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.103-124
• /
• 2012

Because the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea-U.S. FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have an overlapping contracting party, the United States, their provisions have much in common. The investment chapters of these agreements, especially, show many similarities, and thanks to these similarities, it is likely that the Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration tribunal for investor-state disputes regarding the environment will put great weight on the NAFTA tribunals' interpretations of those similar provisions. Since the NAFTA tribunals have already handled many environment-related arbitration cases, their interpretations will help heighten the predictability of environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration cases. This paper analyzes the environment-related NAFTA cases in which the tribunal has issued an award, which are the Metalclad case, S.D. Myers case, Waste Management case, Methanex case, Glamis Gold case, and Chemtura case. According to this analysis, the most controversial NAFTA provisions have been Article 1102 (national treatment), Article 1105 (minimum treatment standard, fair and equitable treatment), and Article 1110 (expropriation). The NAFTA tribunals applied the requirement of these articles in a strict manner, reducing the possibility of finding a violation. After the aforementioned analysis, this paper proceeds to compare the national treatment, minimum treatment standard (fair and equitable treatment), and expropriation provisions of the Korea-U.S. FTA and NAFTA and to predict the impact that the environment-related awards under NAFTA can have on environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA cases. It is expected that the NAFTA interpretations of the national treatment and minimum treatment provisions are likely be used as they are, but not the interpretations of expropriation, because of the differences in the expropriation provisions of the two agreements.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this article by looking into the international commercial arbitration system of China is to provide solutions regarding commercial disputes that may occur in trade between China and Korea. For the research, literature review based on the Chinese Arbitration Law and CIETAC Arbitration Rules was employed. According to the research, the arbitration system of China applies partially differentiated legislation between domestic and international arbitration rules, unaccepting any ad-hoc arbitration, a limitation to the party autonomy, a deficiency of independence given to the arbitral institution, the participation of jurisdiction on arbitration is severe and it brings hardships in the execution of arbitral award. Beside these, in China's arbitral institution the jurisdiction directly progresses adjustments during the arbitration procedure and the following result is written as the award. Thus, the research is expected to provide legal and practical solutions to the commercial dispute with Chinese companies by looking into the main contents of legislations of the international commercial arbitration system in China.