본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

국제중재에서의 증거 배제 사유 : 영업상/기술적 기밀성과 정치적 민감성/국가기밀성의 비교를 중심으로

Documents Excluded from Evidence: Comparing the Grounds for Commercial Confidentiality and Political Sensitivity/State Secrecy

임아영
법무부 (Ministry of Justice)|2021.05|국제법무연구 (Journal of International Legal Affairs)|제2호|pp. 174-191|DOI 10.36514/itl.2021..2.005

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

국제상사중재증거조사기밀성국제투자중재국제중재International arbitrationInternational commercial arbitrationInternational investment arbitration국제투자협정중재문서제출요청IBA 증거규칙증거거부특권정치적 민감성Investment Treaty ArbitrationDocument ProductionRequest to produce documentsIBA Rules on the Taking of EvidenceGrounds to exclude from evidenceCommercial confidentialityPolitical Sensitivity
주제분류법학

초록

국제중재에서의 문서제출절차의 목적은 분쟁 당사자들에게 공개된 기록 외의 관련되고 중요한 문서들을 입수할 합리적인 기회를 제공하기 위한 것이다. 그러나 이에 따른 문서제출의무는 절대적인 것은 아니다. 제출 요청된 문서 중에는 그 관련성 및 중요성에도불구하고 증거로서의 가치보다 더 중요한 가치를 보호하기 위해 증거능력이 배제되기도한다. 본 논문에서는 국제중재절차에서 위와 같은 예외 사유에 해당하는 상업적 기밀성과 정치적 민감성/국가 기밀성을 비교하여 분석하고자 한다. 두 가지 사유 모두 IBA 증거규칙에 확립되어 있지만 IBA 증거규칙이 도입되기 이전에도 다양한 형식으로 존재하여 적용된 바 있다. 두 가지 사유는 증거능력을 배제하는 사유라는 공통점을 갖고 있으나, 각기다른 가치를 보호하기 위해 도입되었다는 차이를 가진다.

Abstract

The purpose of document production in international arbitration is to provide the disputing parties with a reasonable opportunity to obtain relevant and material documents beyond those on the public record. However, the obligation to produce documents is not absolute. Some documents, despite their relevance and materiality, may be excluded from evidence to protect certain interests that outweigh the probative value of the evidence. This article will provide a comparison between the grounds of commercial confidentiality and political sensitivity/state secrecy in international arbitration proceedings. Both grounds are now well-established in the IBA Rules but had existed before the IBA Rules in various forms. They share similarities as grounds to exclude a document from being admissible as evidence, but also seeks to protect different interests.

참고문헌 (34)

  1. 정홍식, "국제중재 절차내에서 증거조사 : 국제변호사협회(IBA)의 2010 증거규칙을 중심으로", 중재연구, 21(3), pp.21~54 (2011), 한국중재학회[DOI]
  2. COMMISSION, Jeffery, "Procedural Issues in International Investment Arbitration" (2018), Oxford University Press
  3. GREGOIRE, Nicolas, "Evidentiary privileges in international arbitration: a comparative analysis under English, American, Swiss and French law" (2016), Schulthess
  4. KHODYKIN, Roman, "A Guide to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration" (2019), Oxford University Press
  5. MARGHITOLA, Reto, "Document Production in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Library, Volume 33" (2015), Kluwer Law International
  6. O'MALLEY Nathan D., "Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration: An Annotated Guide" (2012), Routledge
  7. SCHREUER, Christoph H., "The ICSID Convention: A Commentary" (2009), Cambridge University Press
  8. BEHARRY, Christina L., "Objections to Requests for Documents in International Arbitration:Emerging Practices from NAFTA Chapter 11", ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 27(1) (2012)
  9. BÖCKSTIEGEL, Karl-Heinz, "Presenting Evidence in International Arbitration", ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 16(1) (2001)
  10. LAMM, Carolyn B., "Users' Perspectives on Challenges Facing the Institutions in a Changing World: Author Notes", ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 24(1) (2009)
  11. LEW, Julian D M., "Practising Virtue: Inside International Arbitration" (2016), Oxford Scholarship
  12. MOSK, Richard M, "Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50(2) (2001)
  13. POLASEK, Martina, "Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB", 05, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, pp.2007, 22(1)[DOI]
  14. SHEPPARD, Audley, "The Approach of Investment Treaty Tribunals to Evidentiary Privileges", ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 31(3) (2016)
  15. VAN HOOIJDONK, Marieke, "Do arbitral awards reveal the truth?", pp.93~120 (2019), Wolters Kluwer
  16. "Biwater v. Tanzania Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB", 05, pp.2006, ~
  17. "Canfor Corp v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No. 5 (28 May 2004)", ~ (2004)
  18. "Elliott Associates L.P. v. Republic of Korea, PCA Case No. 2018-51, Procedural Order No. 16 (7 August 2020)", ~ (2020)
  19. "Glamis Gold Ltd v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Decision on Request for Production of Documents and Challenges to Assertions of Privilege (21 April 2006)", ~ (2006)
  20. "Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB.16", 16, Procedural Order No 4 Decision on the Claimant’s Objections to the Respondent’s Claims of Privilege (3 November 2018), 2018
  21. "Merrill & Ring Forestry v Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT", 07, pp.2008, ~
  22. "Philip Morris Asia Limited v Australia, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order 12 Regarding the Parties’ Privilege Claims (14 November 2014)", ~ (2014)
  23. "Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Canada, Decision on Cabinet Confidence (6 September 2000)", ~ (2000)
  24. "United Parcel Service of America, Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Decision of the Tribunal Relating to Canada’s Claim of Cabinet Privilege (8 October 2004)", ~ (2004)
  25. "Vito G Gallo v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No 3 (8 April 2009)", ~ (2009)
  26. William Ralph Clayton, "Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No 8", ~ (2009)
  27. William Ralph Clayton, "Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No 13", ~ (2012)
  28. AJ No. 943 (19 July 2005) (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Judicial District of Calgary), , 2005
  29. "Free Trade Agreement between Central America, the Dominican Republic and the United States of America (signed 5 August 2004, entered into force 1 January 2009) (‘CAFTA-DR’) art. 10.21.3", ~ (2009)
  30. "Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China (signed 17 June 2015, entered into force 20 December 2015) art. 9.17.4", ~ (2015)
  31. "Free Trade Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Korea (signed 30 June 2007, entered into force 15 March 2012, amended as of 1 January 2019) (‘KORUS FTA’) art. 11.21.3", ~ (2019)
  32. "North American Free Trade Agreement (signed 17 December 1992, entered into force 1 January 1994) (‘NAFTA’) arts 2102, 2105", ~ (1994)
  33. "Treaty between the United States of America and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (signed 4 November 2005, entered into force 31 October 2006) (‘US-Uruguay BIT’) art 18", ~ (2006)
  34. "United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (signed 30 November 2018 and 10 December 2019, entered into force on July 1, 2020) (‘USMCA’) arts 14.D.8, 32.2, and 32.7", ~ (2020)

관련 논문AI추천

국제상사중재의 비밀유지의무에 관한 연구박찬동, 신창섭국제거래법학회 · 국제거래법연구2016 · 제25권 제1호Judicial Assistance in Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration전정원한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2019 · 제32권 제2호국제중재에서의 투명성과 기밀성의 경계(境界)류병운서울시립대학교 법학연구소 · 서울법학2018 · 제26권 제3호2019년 개정 ICC 중재 진행에 관한 당사자 및 중재판정부 지침의 주요내용과 시사점:ICC의 중재판정부 정보 공개 및 중재판정의발간 정책을 중심으로안건형한국중재학회 · 중재연구2019 · 제29권 제2호국제중재에서의 전자적 자료에 대한 증거조사에 관한 고찰 - 개정 국제중재에서의 증거조사에 관한 국제변호사협회 규칙에 관한 검토를 중심으로 -김도훈사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2011 · 제60권 제4호국제중재에서의 전자증거개시 -전자증거개시를 규율하는 규정의 제정을 중심으로-안정혜한국중재학회 · 중재연구2010 · 제20권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

탄소국경조정 도입의 WTO 합치성 쟁점 : GATT 제2조, 제3조, 제20조김호철pp. 3-54Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss in Investor-State Disputes and Reform Options이재성pp. 55-91해외건설공사에 대한 하도급법의 적용가능성 및 FIDIC 표준계약조건의 하도급법 위반가능성황성현pp. 92-136코로나19 백신 관련 EU와 미국의 수출통제위민복pp. 137-173
원문 보기