National Measures to Secure Constitutionally Justified Regulatory Powers of Korea in the Framework of the Current Korea-US Free Trade Agreement Chapter 11
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper proposes national legal alternatives for the Korean government, as a party state of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS-FTA), to secure constitutionally legitimate regulatory powers. Critical commentators opine that the Investment Chapter of the KORUS-FTA allows global investors to challenge various types of government action even in a national public area such as public health, environment protection or land zoning. Particularly, investor-state arbitration (ISA) can present a risk to a disputing state. In response to such risks, this research argues for more indirect but legally legitimate control of investment arbitration by using the sovereign power of treaty making. Such measures are acceptable not only to national players but also to global ones in the international investment field, because they are allowed by international and national law. These alternatives can be called a contextual control in the sense that it does not pursue a direct control of the arbitration system; instead, it adjusts the contexts of the arbitrator's act, namely treaty interpretations. The party state transplants its goal of investment policy by facilitating procedural instruments to reduce the discretion in interpreting a disputable treaty provision. The KORUS-FTA, influenced by models of modern international investment treaty (IIT), provides many contextual control measures, despite some limitations.
Abstract
This paper proposes national legal alternatives for the Korean government, as a party state of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS-FTA), to secure constitutionally legitimate regulatory powers. Critical commentators opine that the Investment Chapter of the KORUS-FTA allows global investors to challenge various types of government action even in a national public area such as public health, environment protection or land zoning. Particularly, investor-state arbitration (ISA) can present a risk to a disputing state. In response to such risks, this research argues for more indirect but legally legitimate control of investment arbitration by using the sovereign power of treaty making. Such measures are acceptable not only to national players but also to global ones in the international investment field, because they are allowed by international and national law. These alternatives can be called a contextual control in the sense that it does not pursue a direct control of the arbitration system; instead, it adjusts the contexts of the arbitrator's act, namely treaty interpretations. The party state transplants its goal of investment policy by facilitating procedural instruments to reduce the discretion in interpreting a disputable treaty provision. The KORUS-FTA, influenced by models of modern international investment treaty (IIT), provides many contextual control measures, despite some limitations.
참고문헌 (35)
- Appleton, Barry, "Regulatory Takings: The International Law Perspective", New York University Environmental Law Journal, 11 (2002)
- Bae, Chang-Hee Christine, "Korea’s Greenbelts: Impacts and Options for Change", Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 7 (1998)
- 최승필, "한미 자유무역협정(FTA)의 공법적 문제에 관한 소고", 공법연구, 36(3), pp.515~543 (2008), 한국공법학회
- Gantz, David A., "The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAFTA to the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement", American University International Law Review, 19 (2003)
- Gill, Stephen, "New Constitutionalism, Democratisation and Global Political Economy", Global Change, Peace & Security, 10 (1998)
- Harris, Fiona, "The Business of Human Rights: An Evolving Agenda for Corporate Responsibility" (2011), Zed
- Harten, Gus Van, "Investment Rules and the Denial of Change", University of Toronto Law Journal, 60 (2010)
- 정하명, "한미 FTA 협정문 제11.6조 수용 및 보상의 의미와 정부규제권", 공법학연구, 8(3), pp.41~62 (2007), 한국비교공법학회
- 김성배, "The Role of Government in the Redistribution of Property Rights: The Case of the Korean Greenbelt", International Review of Public Administration, 9(1), pp.97~111 (2004), 한국행정학회
- Kim, Younsik, "Challenges and Opportunities for the National Constitutional System in Dealing with the Global Investment Regime: A Case Study of the Indirect Expropriation Doctrine and Investor-state Arbitration under the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America", 박사, pp.2012
- Han, Sang Hie, "Constitutional Analysis on the Expropriation Clause of the KORUS FTA (HanmiFTAwa Gugga Chaeg-im)", Sugang Legal Study, 9 (2007)
- Harten, Gus Van, "Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Roberts, Anthea, "Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Role of State", The American Journal of International Law, 104 (2010)
- Salacuse, Jeswald W., "The Emerging Global Regime for Investment", Harvard International Law Journal, 51 (2010)
- Sauvant, Karl P., "The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties and Investment Flows" (2009), Oxford University Press
- Schneiderman, David, "Investment Rules and the New Constitutionalism", Law & Social Inquiry, 25 (2000)
- Schneiderman, David, "Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization : Investment Rules and Democracy’s Promise" (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Schneiderman, David, "Nafta’s Takings Rule: American Constitutionalism Comes to Canada", The University of Toronto Law Journal, 46 (1996)
- Shuh, Won Woo, "Taking Land: Compulsory Purchase and Regulation of Land in Asian-Pacific Countries" (2002), University of Hawaii Press
- Sornarajah, M., "The International Law on Foreign Investment" (2010), Cambridge University Press
- Steinhardt, Ralph G., "Non-state Actors and Human Rights" (2005), Oxford University Press
- "UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, Interpretation of IIAs: What States Can Do" (2011)[URL]
- Yackee, Jason Webb, "Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Promote Foreign Direct Investment? Some Hints from Alternative Evidence", Virginia Journal of International Law, 51 (2011)
- "10-2 KCCR 927, 89Hun-Ma214, 90Hun-Ba16, 97Hun-Ba78 (consolidated)", ~ (1998)
- "13-1 KCCR 129, 99Hun-Ma636", ~ (2001)
- "ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID No. ARB(AF)", 00, 18 ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal 195, pp.2003, ~
- "Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID No. ARB/01/12" (2006)[URL]
- "Colt Industries Operating Corporation v. Republic of Korea", ICSID No. ARB, 2, ~
- "El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award" (2011)[URL]
- "El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID No. ARB", 03, 21 ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal 488, pp.2006, ~
- "Hanocal Holding B.V. and IPIC International B.V. v. Republic of Korea, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/17"[URL]
- "LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB", 02, 21(1) ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal 203, pp.2006, 203~
- "LSF-KEB Holdings SCA and others v. Republic of Korea, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/37"[URL]
- "Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Award in Respect of Damage" (2002)[URL]
- "Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID No. ARB(AF)", 00, 43 International Legal Materials 133, pp.2004, ~