본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

중국의 투자협정 상 ‘수용 보상금액 중재조항’에 관한 연구

A Study on ‘Expropriation Compensation Amount Arbitration Clause’ on Chinese Investment Agreement

하현수
한국무역보험학회 (The Korean Academy for Trade Credit Insurance)|2021.02|무역금융보험연구 (Journal of International Trade and Insurance)|제22권 제1호|pp. 135-152|DOI 10.22875/jiti.2021.22.1.009

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

투자협정국제투자중재중재범위Investment agreement중국의 투자협정수용 보상금액 중재조항China’s investment agreementInternational investment arbitrationArbitration scopeArbitration clause for the amount of compensation for expropriation

초록

중국은 개방정책 시행 초기 투자자-국가 간 투자분쟁과 관련하여 외국의 간섭을 최소화시킬목적으로 수용에 따른 보상금액의 산정 문제에 대해서만 국제중재에 회부가 가능하도록 중재범위를 한정하는 이른바 ‘수용 보상금액 중재조항’을 규정한 투자협정을 체결하였다. 그러나중국의 급속한 경제성장에 기인하여 2000년대 이후 중국 자본도 외국으로 투자가 증가됨에따라서, 중국이 여전히 ‘수용 보상금액 중재조항’을 본래의 의도대로 유지하는 것이 유리할 것인가 하는 고민을 하게 되었다. 본 연구에서는 중국의 투자자-국가 간 국제중재의 중재범위와관련한 사례, 법규, 그리고 문헌을 분석하여, 현재 중국이 이와 관련하여 어떠한 입장을 취하고있는지 그리고 향후 중재범위를 포함하여 국제중재를 어떠한 방향으로 변화시키고자 할 것인지에 대하여 살펴보았다. 이러한 중국의 투자자-국가 간 투자분쟁 해결제도에 대한 태도 및입장의 확인은 향후 우리나라가 중국과 투자관련 협정을 체결 또는 개정하는데 활용될 수 있을 것이다. 중국 정부는 ‘수용 보상금액 중재조항’의 해석에 있어 광의로 해석하는 입장과 협의로 해석하는 입장을 모두 취하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 즉, 중국 정부는 최근에 체결 및 수정한 무역협정에서는 ‘수용 보상금액 중재조항’과 관련한 규정을 삭제하여 투자와 관련한 모든분쟁을 국제중재를 통해 해결이 가능하도록 하였다. 그러나 한편으로 기존에 체결된 ‘수용 보상금액 중재조항’을 포함한 무역협정과 관련해서는 이 조항을 협의로 해석하는 것을 선호하는것으로 보인다. 이러한 중국의 상반된 태도는 중국 투자자의 대외투자 증가에 따른 자국 기업에 대한 보호와 공공의 이익 및 재판관할권의 보호 등과 같은 상충되는 사항들의 고려에 따른결과라 할 수 있을 것이다.

Abstract

Purpose : In this study, we have looked into what position China is taking in relation to the scope of international arbitration between investors and countries, and what direction it will change international arbitration including the scope of arbitration in the future. The confirmation of attitudes and positions on the investment dispute resolution system between countries and investor can be used for Korea to conclude or revise investment-related agreements with China in the future. Research design, data, methodology : This study analyzed major dispute cases, laws, and literatures related to the ‘arbitration clause for the amount of compensation for expropriation’ around the world including China. Results : It seems that the Chinese government is taking both the broad interpretation and the narrow interpretation under the ‘arbitration clause for the amount of compensation for expropriation’. Thus, in the recently concluded and revised trade agreements, the Chinese government has removed the provisions related to the ‘arbitration clause for the amount of compensation for expropriation’ so that all disputes related to investment can be resolved through international arbitration. On the other hand, however, it seems that it is preferable to interpret the existing trade agreements including the ‘arbitration clause for the amount of compensation for expropriation’ with narrow interpretation. Conclusions : China's contradictory attitudes can be said to be the result of consideration of conflicting issues such as the protection of domestic enterprises and the public interests and the protection of jurisdiction following the increase in foreign investment by Chinese investors. In addition, China is expected to maintain this contradictory position.

참고문헌 (47)

  1. Chen, An, "Distinguishing Two Types of Countries and Granting Properly Differential Treatments—Re-comment on the Four Safeguards under ICSID System to China Not to Be Hastily and Completely Dismantled", Journal of International Economic Law, 14(3) (2007)
  2. Chen, An, "New Development of International Investment Law and New Practice of China’s Bilateral Investment Treaty" (2007), Fudan University Press
  3. Du, Tao, "Hela Schwarz v. China and the Concurrency of Litigation and Arbitration in ISDS", Business and Economic Law Review, 2019(3) (2019)
  4. Duan, Jielong, "International Law in China:Cases and Practice" (2011), Law Press
  5. 하현수, "중국의 투자자-국가 간 분쟁 해결제도에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 23(4), pp.29~53 (2013), 한국중재학회[DOI]
  6. Huang, Shixi, "The Application of MFN Clauses and the New Trends of Jurisdiction in International Investment Arbitration", Science of Law(Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), 2013(2) (2013)
  7. Huang, Shixi, "The judicial review of international investment arbitration awards and the fairness of investment treaty interpretationbased on the investigation of the judgments in the Sanum and Yukos cases", Law Science, 2017(3) (2017)
  8. ICSID, "China Ratifies the ICSID Convention", News from ICSID, 10(1) (1993)
  9. Jiang, Qingyun, "Economic Perspective towards Indirect Expropriation Clause and China’s BIT Structuring", Research of Institutional Economics, 2014(4) (2014)
  10. 강준하, "CETA 투자자-국가간 분쟁해결제도에 대한 법적 고찰: 한국-캐나다 FTA와의 비교를 중심으로", 홍익법학, 20(1), pp.167~189 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
  11. Liu, Xuehong, "Legal Obstacles and institutional Restructure of Overseas Protection for Chinese investors", ECUPL Journal, 2019(2) (2019)
  12. Report on Development of China’s Outward Investment, "Ministry of Commerce of The People’s Republic of China", Ministry of Commerce of The People’s Republic of China, ~ (2018)
  13. Muniz, Joaquim P., "The New Brazilian BIT on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments: A New Approach in Times of Change", ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 32(2) (2017)
  14. Shen, Wei, "Towards Liberalism and Multilateralism : Evolution of the Substantive Standards in China’s Investment Treaties", Chinese Journal of Law, 2015(4) (2015)
  15. Investor-State Dispute Settlement:Review of Developments in 2017, "UNCTAD", United Nations, ~ (2018)
  16. World Investment Report 2018, "UNCTAD", United Nations, ~ (2019)
  17. Wang, Anqi, "Indirect expropriation: the game of interest between the host country and the investor-with the ICSID arbitration as the vision", Beijing Arbitration Quarterly, 99 (2017)
  18. Wang, Chuanli, "International Economic Law" (2015), China Renmin University Press
  19. Wang, Linbin, "Improvement of Investment Risk Relief System between China and Central Asian Countries", Lanzhou Journal, 2020(1) (2020)
  20. Willems, Jane Y., "The Settlement of Investor State Disputes and China New Developments on ICSID Jurisdiction", South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business, 8(1) (2011)
  21. Yang, Quling, "Comment on the Determination of the Application Scope of the Arbitration Clause in the “Xie Yeshen Case”", Journal of Xiamen Radio & Television University, 2011(2) (2011)
  22. Yi, Shuling, "A Prospective Analysis of the Operation of EU FTA International Investment Dispute Appeal Tribunal", Journal of Yantai University(philosophy and Social Science Edition), 31(1) (2018)
  23. 유형석, "국가면제의 제한에 관한 국제적 동향", 법학연구, (34), pp.443~463 (2009), 한국법학회
  24. Zhang, Jian, "Comment on the Arbitration Case of 'BG Group v. Argentina' - Focusing on the Ownership of the Power to Interpret the Arbitration Clause", Beijing Arbitration Quarterly, 99 (2017)
  25. Zhang, Jian, "On the Early Dismissal Procedure in ICSID Investment Arbitration -A Case Study of Korea Ansung Company", Sichuan University Law Review, 18 (2018)
  26. Zhang, Jian, "A Case Analysis of Heilongjiang Internationa Economic &Technical Cooperative Corp. et al. v. Mongolia:Focusing on the Interpretation of Restrictive Arbitration Clause in Investment Treaties", Beijing Arbitration Quarterly, 104 (2018)
  27. Zhang, Man, "A Study in the Resolution Mechanism for Investor-State Dispute Settlement in China", Doctor, pp.2019
  28. Zhang, Naigen, "Effective Interpretation in ICSID Arbitration:Origin,Application and Comparison", Wuhan University International Law Review, 2017(1) (2017)
  29. "Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. v. People’s Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB", 14, pp.2017, ~
  30. "Austrian Airlines v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 9 October 2009", ~ (2009)
  31. "Beijing Urban Construction Group Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No.ARB", 14, pp.2017, ~
  32. "China Heilongjiang International Economic &Technical Cooperative Corp., Beijing Shougang Mining Investment Company Ltd., and Qinhuangdaoshi Qinlong International Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Mongolia, UNCITRAL, PCA, Award, 30 June 2017", ~ (2017)
  33. "Ekran Berhad v. People’s Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB", 11, ~
  34. "European American Investment Bank AG(EURAM) v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award in Jurisdiction, 22 October 2012", ~
  35. "European Media Ventures SA v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction, 15 May 2007", ~ (2007)
  36. "Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Sanum Investments Ltd., 2015SGHC 15, Judgment, 20 January 2015", ~ (2015)
  37. "Hela Schwarz GmbH v. People’s Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB", 17, pp.2018, ~
  38. "Mr. Franz Sedelmayer v. The Russian Federation, SCC, Award, 7 July, 1998", ~ (1998)
  39. "Mr. Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB", 07, pp.2009, ~
  40. "Renta 4 S.V.S.A, Ahorro Coropracion Emergentes F.I., Ahorro Corporacion Eurofondo F.I., Rovime Inversiones SICAV S.A., Quasar de Valors SICAV S.A., Orgor de Valores SICAV S.A., GBI 9000 SICAV S.A. v. Russian Federation, SCC No. 24", 2007, Award on Preliminary Objections, 20 March 2009, 2009
  41. "RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v. The Russian Federation, SCC Case No. V079", 2005, Award on Jurisdiction, 1 October 2007, 2007
  42. "Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB", 05, pp.2007, ~
  43. "Sanum Investments Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2016SGCA 57, Singapore Court of Appeal, 29September 2016, Award", ~
  44. "Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No.ADHOC", 17, pp.2013, ~
  45. "Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB", 04, pp.2006, ~
  46. "The Czech Republic v. European Media Ventures SA, Judgment on Jurisdiction, 2007EWHC 2851 (Comm), 5 December 2007", ~ (2007)
  47. "Vladimir Berschader and Moise Berschader v. The Russian Federation, SCC Case No. 080", 2004, Award, 21 April 2006, 2006

관련 논문AI추천

한․중 FTA에서의 수용 조항에 관한 연구전가법과정책연구원 · 국제법무2009 · 제1권 제1호중국의 투자자-국가 간 분쟁 해결제도에 관한 연구하현수한국중재학회 · 중재연구2013 · 제23권 제4호중국 BIT상 최혜국대우조항의 투자자-국가 간 분쟁해결절차에 적용에 관한 연구장만, 하현수경영경제연구소 · 아태비즈니스연구2019 · 제10권 제1호중국의 중재판정 취소제도최송자한국중재학회 · 중재연구2015 · 제25권 제2호중국에서 내국인 간의 투자계약 관련 중재 사례 검토장경찬한국중재학회 · 중재연구2014 · 제24권 제2호중국진출기업의 투자보호와 투자분쟁해결정응기대한변호사협회 · 인권과 정의2012 · 제428호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

수단의 테러지원국 해제와 우리 기업의 진출 방안김재우, 윤준모pp. 3-18금융소비자보호 제도 개선방안최미수pp. 19-34마코프 국면전환 모형을 이용한 일본의 對韓직접투자 결정요인 연구사공목, 최종일pp. 35-51연속매매 시 송하인과 운송인의 주의의무에 관한 연구이정선pp. 53-67스마트 물류의 적용과 활용방안에 관한 연구이은정pp. 69-84
원문 보기