• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.519-544
• /
• 2011

Clauses on national treatment in the bilateral investment treaties including FTA state that, the foreign investor and his investments are 'accorded treatment no less favourable than that which the host state accords to its own investors'. Hence the purpose of the clause is to oblige a host state to make no negative differentiation between foreign and national investors when enacting and applying its rules and regulations and thus to promote the position of the foreign investor to the level accorded to nationals. As a matter of legal drafting technique, while the basic clause is generally the same, the practical implications differ due to more or less wide-ranging exemptions of certain business sectors. It is generally agreed that the application of the clause is fact-specific. This paper deals with problems in drafting clauses on national treatment in practice, introduces several considerations to adjust the level of national treatment, so it can be made more represents the interest of our country.

• 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.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.11-40
• /
• 2012

National Health Insurance Act has been enforced all over the People as part of the effort to assure the minimum constitutional human worth and dignity in the aspect of the right to pursue health for preventing misfortune that comes to death without even a chance to be received treatment for illness or injury. Meanwhile auto insurance is compulsory in certain parts in order to promote benefits of everyday life and the rapid recovery of the damage caused by traffic accident when one have negligently driven a car which has become the necessities in daily life. Any injured driver in a traffic accident can be treated by National Health Insurance without getting an auto insurance in various circumstances, but Article 3 paragraph 2 of Traffic Accident Act don't allow exception of criminal punishment when he has driven a car without license, drunken, or tresspassing the centerline, etc. When the injury occured by his own certain negligence is judged to 'when he has intentionally or through gross negligence caused a criminal conduct or intentionally contributed to the occurrence of an accident' of National Health Insurance Act, insurance benefits can be restricted. Such a restriction could harm the right to pursue happiness and health of People by depriving the poor, who cannot afford to pay, of chances to get treatment. Here we will see benefit restriction by 'gross negligence' of National Health Insurance Act Article 48 paragraph 1, which has largest portion of such restriction. It is desirable to delete 'gross negligence' clause from above paragraph and to interpret 'when' clause restrictively for diminishing confusion of interpreting and guaranteeing the right of health.

• 한국임상약학회지
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• pp.79-99
• /
• 2024

Background: There was an important revision of the Korean Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke (KCPGS) for antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke in 2022. This review is to provide an updated information in this revision. Methods: The revision history by year after the first announcement was examined for each topic, focusing on antithrombotic therapy during acute phase which was revised in 2022. We compared before and after the revision, and investigated the clinical outcomes presented as evidence. It was also compared with the current U.S. guidelines. Results: The major changes about antiplatelet therapy are a clause stating that dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin initiated within 24 hours from the stroke onset and maintained for up to 21-30 days is recommended as an acute treatment, as well as the clause that antithrombotic therapy may be initiated within 24 hours after intravenous thrombolytics and that the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists can be considered in highly selected patients as rescue therapy taking into account of benefit and risk. The change to the use of anticoagulants is that it may be reasonable to start oral anticoagulant between 4 and 14 days after stroke onset for patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation. Conclusions: It will be helpful in improving health outcomes for clinical pharmacists to be aware of the latest information for antithrombotic therapy and to actively use it in pharmaceutical care of stroke patients.

• 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.

• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권1호
• /
• pp.177-191
• /
• 2019

Global trade protectionism has increased further and U.S. priorities and protectionism have strengthened since Trump took office in 2017. Trump administration is actively implementing tariff measures based on U.S. domestic trade laws rather than the WTO rules and regulations. In particular, the American government has recently been imposing high tariffs due to national security and imposing economic sanctions on other countries' imports. According to the U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section 232, the American government imposed additional tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to WTO member countries such as China, India, and EU etc. on march 15, 2018. Thus, this study aims to investigate whether the U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section 232 is consistent with GATT/WTO rules by comparing the legal basis of US / China / WTO regulations related to Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act, and gives some suggestions for responding to the Section 232 measure. As the Section 232 measure exceeded the scope of GATT's Security Exceptions regulation and is very likely to be understood as a safeguard measure. If so, the American government is deemed to be in breach of WTO's regulations, such as the most-favored-nation treatment obligations and the duty reduction obligations. In addition, American government is deemed to be failed to meet the conditions of initiation of safeguard measure and violated the procedural requirements such as notification and consultation. In order to respond to these U.S. protection trade measures, all affected countries should actively use the WTO multilateral system to prevent unfair measures. Also, it is necessary to revise the standard jurisdiction of the dispute settlement body and to explore the balance of the WTO Exception clause so that it can be applied strictly. Finally, it would be necessary for Chinese exporters to take a counter-strategy under such trade pressure.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.123-164
• /
• 2014

Under the new system of 'Separation of pharmaceutical prescription and dispensing' in Korea, which was implemented in 2000, physician could not dispense a medicine, and outpatient should have a physician's prescription filled at a drugstore. After pharmacist makes up outpatient's prescription, National Health Insurance Service(NHIS) pay for outpatient's medicine to pharmacist, except an outpatient's own medicine charge. And NHIS only pay for outpatient's prescription fee to physician and, physician doesn't derive profit from dispensing medicine in itself. Nevertheless, if physician writes out a prescription with violation of 'Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits', NHIS clawed back the payment of outpatient's prescription and medicine from the physician or the medical institution which the physician belongs to. In the past, NHIS's confiscation was in accordance with 'the National Health Care Insurance Act, Article 52, Clause 1'. But, since 2006 when the Supreme Court declared that there was no legal basis on the NHIS's confiscation of outpatient's medicine payment, NHIS had put in a claim for illegal prescriptions on the basis 'the Korean Civil law, Article 750(tort)'. So, Many medical institutions filed civil actions against NHIS. The key point of this actions was whether the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits constitute of the law of tort. On this point, the first trial and the second trial took different position. Finally the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitution of the law of tort in 2013. In this paper, the author will review critically the decision of the Supreme Court, and consider the relativeness between the legal effect of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits and the constitution of the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits as the law of tort.

• 한국방사선학회논문지
• /
• 제8권3호
• /
• pp.105-110
• /
• 2014

국내 진단용 방사선 발생장치는 3년 주기로 시행되는 정기적인 정도관리 검사에 앞서 일별, 주별, 월별, 분기 반기별로 시행하는 수시 정도 관리에 대한 항목 및 규정이 명확하게 지정되어 있지 않다. 미국과 유럽 등의 선진국에서는 정도 관리 항목에 대해 검사를 수행하는 검사자를 구분하여 국가 기관에 보고하도록 되어 있으므로 체계적인 검사 수행과 더불어 검토가 가능하다. 그러므로 의료 장비의 현대화가 이루어지는 시점에서 국외의 주기별 정도관리 시스템을 국내 진단용 방사선 발생 장치에 적합하도록 도입하여 정도관리 항목과 기준의 재정립이 반드시 필요하다. 이에 본 논문에서는 진단용 방사선 발생장치 중 가장 빈번히 사용되고 있는 일반 X선 촬영 장치의 3년 정기점검 사이에 주기적인 수시 정도 관리 검사 항목과 방법 및 기준 수립을 위해 미국, 캐나다 등의 국외 문헌 조사 및 국제 전자 기술 위원회(International Electro-technical Commission, IEC)의 규정 항목과 비교하였다. 이를 바탕으로 국내 수시 정도관리 항목 신설 시 필요한 검사 항목 및 기준 설정을 위한 기초 자료로 제시하고자 하였다.