본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

국가안보와 외국인 투자규제 - 외국인 투자촉진법 시행령 제5조를 중심으로

National Security Protection and Regulation of Foreign Investment: Analysis of Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of Foreign Investment Promotion Act of Korea

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Korea is aggressively expanding its FTA and BIT networks these days to invite more foreign investment into the Korean market. The prevalence and expansion of the foreign investment in Korea have also brought an important policy consideration, which is whether and when the Korean government can restrict foreign investment if it is targeted at the national security-related area or other vital national interest-related areas. If unbridled, foreign investment in these areas has the potential of illegitimately undermining the Korean government’s authority to preserve and exercise its sovereignty. In this respect, the Korean government recently amended the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (“Enforcement Decree”) to reflect this concern. However, it did not amend the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (“FIPA”) itself, nor did it adopt a new legislation in this regard. Although Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree does provide more elaborated provisions regarding the government’s authority to restrict foreign investment because of the national security concerns, its exact scope and coverage still remain uncertain. This is mainly because the FIPA apparently adopts a different concept and scope for this issue in its text than the Enforcement Decree. Depending upon how these provisions in the FIPA and Enforcement Decree are interpreted, the exact scope of the national security-related restriction on foreign investment would vary and fluctuate. What is particularly unclear, and thus controversial, is whether the national security-related restriction on foreign investment also covers the situation where national vital economic interest is being threatened. This idea has been floated for some time since the Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations triggered this debate, but there is still no clear answer yet. Generally speaking, the international trend appears not to support this kind of concept, but at the same time it also appears that there are situations where the whole economic structure is in danger as we saw in 1998 or 2008 financial crises and that such situations may warrant the application of the national security-related restriction clause. It is simply not clear yet at this point. Worse yet, the Enforcement Decree and the FIPA add more confusion and uncertainty regarding this issue. As such, it is advised that the Korean government contemplate this crucial issue and reach an appropriate conclusion sooner rather than later taking all relevant factors into consideration, including the international trend, the interpretation of the relevant provisions in various agreements and the legislative development in other countries. Based on this preparation, the Enforcement Decree and the FIPA could and should be fine-tuned and adjusted so as to avoid unnecessary investment disputes or for Korea to prevail in a specific dispute in the future.

Abstract

Korea is aggressively expanding its FTA and BIT networks these days to invite more foreign investment into the Korean market. The prevalence and expansion of the foreign investment in Korea have also brought an important policy consideration, which is whether and when the Korean government can restrict foreign investment if it is targeted at the national security-related area or other vital national interest-related areas. If unbridled, foreign investment in these areas has the potential of illegitimately undermining the Korean government’s authority to preserve and exercise its sovereignty. In this respect, the Korean government recently amended the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (“Enforcement Decree”) to reflect this concern. However, it did not amend the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (“FIPA”) itself, nor did it adopt a new legislation in this regard. Although Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree does provide more elaborated provisions regarding the government’s authority to restrict foreign investment because of the national security concerns, its exact scope and coverage still remain uncertain. This is mainly because the FIPA apparently adopts a different concept and scope for this issue in its text than the Enforcement Decree. Depending upon how these provisions in the FIPA and Enforcement Decree are interpreted, the exact scope of the national security-related restriction on foreign investment would vary and fluctuate. What is particularly unclear, and thus controversial, is whether the national security-related restriction on foreign investment also covers the situation where national vital economic interest is being threatened. This idea has been floated for some time since the Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations triggered this debate, but there is still no clear answer yet. Generally speaking, the international trend appears not to support this kind of concept, but at the same time it also appears that there are situations where the whole economic structure is in danger as we saw in 1998 or 2008 financial crises and that such situations may warrant the application of the national security-related restriction clause. It is simply not clear yet at this point. Worse yet, the Enforcement Decree and the FIPA add more confusion and uncertainty regarding this issue. As such, it is advised that the Korean government contemplate this crucial issue and reach an appropriate conclusion sooner rather than later taking all relevant factors into consideration, including the international trend, the interpretation of the relevant provisions in various agreements and the legislative development in other countries. Based on this preparation, the Enforcement Decree and the FIPA could and should be fine-tuned and adjusted so as to avoid unnecessary investment disputes or for Korea to prevail in a specific dispute in the future.

참고문헌 (35)

  1. 이병석, "국가경제에 중대한 영향을 미치는 외국인투자 등의 규제에 관한 법률안 (2007년 3월 15일)", ~ (2007)
  2. 이상경, "국가안보에 반하는 외국인 투자 규제법안 (2006년 12월 29일)", ~ (2006)
  3. "외국인 투자 촉진법", ~
  4. "외국인투자촉진법 시행령 (2008년 2월 22일, 대통령령 제20646호) 국가를 당사자로 하는 소송에 관한 법률", ~ (2008)
  5. "정부법무공단법", ~
  6. 박노형, "국제경제법" (2006), 박영사
  7. 김대순, "WTO법론" (2006), 삼영사
  8. 최승환, "국제경제법" (2003), 법영사
  9. 김석현, "국제법상 국가책임" (2007), 삼영사
  10. 김대순, "국제법론. 제15판" (2010), 삼영사
  11. 이병조, "국제법신강, 제9개정판" (2008), 일조각
  12. 김성수, "일반행정법" (2008), 법문사
  13. 정종섭, "헌법학원론" (2006), 박영사
  14. "the U.S., and the WTO, ASIL Insight"[URL]
  15. Robert A. Green, "Antilegalistic Approaches to Resolving Disputes Between Governments: A Comparison of The International Tax and Trade Regimes", Yale J. Int’l L., 23, pp.79~ (1998)
  16. Wesley A. Cann, "Creating Standards and Accountability for the Use of the WTO Security Exception: Reducing the Role of Power‐Based Relations and Establishing A New Balance Between Sovereignty and Multilateralism", Yale J. Int’l L., 26, pp.413~ (2001)
  17. Raj Bhala, "National Security and International Trade Law: What the GATT Says, and What the United States Does", U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L., 19, pp.263~ (1998)
  18. Rene E. Browne, "Note, Revisiting National Security” in an Interdependent World: The GATT Article XXI Defense After Helms‐Burton", Geo. L. J., 86, pp.405~ (1997)
  19. "Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the ILC on the Work of its Fifty‐third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess, Supp No 10, p 43, UN Doc A", 56, pp.2010, ~
  20. "미국 1988년 종합통상법 (Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988)", ~ (1988)
  21. "미국 1950년 방위산업법 (Defense Production Act of 1950)", ~ (1950)
  22. "미국 국가정보국 (Office of Director of National Intelligence)"[URL]
  23. "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”)", ~ (1994)
  24. "General Agreement on Trade in Services (“GATS”)", ~
  25. "OECD 자본이동 자유화규약 (OECD Code of Liberalization of Capital Movements)", ~
  26. "OECE 웹사이트"[URL]
  27. "한-칠레 FTA (2004년 4월 1일 발효)", ~ (2004)
  28. "한-싱가포르 FTA (2006년 3월 2일 발효)", ~ (2006)
  29. "한-인도 FTA (2010년 1월 1일 발효)", ~ (2010)
  30. "한-아세안 FTA (투자) (2009년 9월 1일 발효)", ~ (2009)
  31. "한미 FTA (2006년 6월 30일 서명)", ~ (2006)
  32. "한일 투자보장협정 (2003년 1월 1일 발효)", ~ (2003)
  33. 동아일보, "기간산업 외국자본 M&A 규제를 (2006년 4월 21일자)", ~ (2006)
  34. 조선일보, "외국인 투자규제법 도입하나 (2007년 5월 27일자)", ~ (2007)
  35. 한국경제, "외국인M&A 규제, 한국판 엑슨 플로리오 법안 논란 (2007년 4월 27일자)", ~ (2007)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)