본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

투자법원, 투자분쟁해결절차의 합리적 개선방안인가? - 상설법원 도입 움직임의 제도적 함의 및 법적 쟁점

Can an Investment Court Resolve Current Problems of ISDS Proceedings? - Legal Issues and Systemic Implications of the 2015 EU Proposal

이재민
법무부 (Ministry of Justice)|2016.12|국제법무연구 (Journal of International Legal Affairs)|제132호|pp. 70-128|DOI 10.36514/itl.2016..132.004

0

조회

0

다운로드

11

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

투자협정TTIPInternational Investment Agreements투자분쟁해결절차항소제도투자중재ICSID 협약투자법원Investment CourtEU 투자협정 개선제안ISDS proceedingsTrans-Atlantic Trade and Investment PartnershipICSID Convention.
주제분류법학

초록

EU는 최근 국제사회의 추이를 반영하여 2015년 획기적인 ISDS 절차 개선안을 제시하였다. 그 중 가장 주목을 끌고 있는 사항은 상설적인 투자법원을 양자 투자협정에 기초하여 각각 설치하여 운용하자는 것이다. 이러한 투자법원 제안은 ISDS 절차를 통한 판정의 신뢰성 확보, 정당한 정부 규제권한 행사 가능성 확보, ISDS 절차를 통한 남소 방지 등 기존에 제기되던 다양한 우려를 일부 해소하는 측면도 상당 부분 포함하고 있다. 동시에 투자법원 제도는 기존의 ISDS 절차에 비하여 상당히 파격적인 내용을 담고 있는 제안으로 과연 이 제도가 의도한 바 목적을 달성할 수 있을지 여부에 대하여 적지 않은 의구심이 제기되고 있기도 하다. 특히 현재 제기되고 있는 ISDS 절차에 대한 우려는 중재판정부의 임시성 내지 일회성 때문이라기 보다는 양자협정 체제로 구축된 국제투자법의 파편화 현상 그리고 국제적 성격의 분쟁해결절차를 통한 국내정책에 대한 법적 평가 자체에 대한 거부감으로부터 출발하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 국제법원이 도입된다고 하여 기존의 우려와 문제점이 해결될 것으로 보기는 힘들다고 할 것이다. 오히려 새로운 기제를 도입함으로써 기존의 파편화 현상이 가속화되고 어느 정도 자리를 잡아가고 있는 ISDS 절차의 최근 정비작업이 혼돈상태에 빠질 가능성도 없지 않다. 나아가 이러한 투자법원의 도입은 기존의 협정 및 협약과 반드시 부합하지 않은 부분도 다수 내포하고 있다. 현재 ISDS 절차의 개선을 위하여 다양한 포럼과 루트를 통하여 방안이 제시되고 논의가 전개되고 있는 작금의 상황은 우리나라 역시 이러한 흐름에 뒤처지지 않는 것이 중요하다는 점을 일깨워주고 있다. 새로운 제도 도입과 관련하여 다양한 계기를 활용하여 우리측 의견을 제시하거나 또는 새로운 대안을 보여주는 것이 필요할 것이다.

Abstract

The European Union proposed in September 2015 a new scheme that would change the framework of the current international investment agreements and investor-state dispute settlement proceedings (ISDS proceedings) in a significant manner. The EU proposal in particular submits new ideas to amend the current ISDS proceedings. Among the new ideas the suggestion to introduce a new standing court to resolve investment disputes stands out. There have been robust discussions in the international community and scholars regarding this suggestion of a standing investment court. There are obvious merits from introducing a standing investment court as it will accord enhanced trust on the decision making process of international investment disputes. Conflict of interest of the arbitrators can also be avoided more efficiently under the new scheme. The investment court may also be more susceptible to understanding the need to preserve legitimate policy space of sovereign governments. At the same time, there are various legal problems and questions relating to this proposal. For instance, it is not clear whether the operation and administration of an investment court is compatible with provisions of the ICSID Convention. It is also questionable whether a standing court stays within the general parameter of an investment arbitration. In addition, to the extent the core problems of the ISDS proceedings lie in the fragmented system of the international investment agreements, and unless this system itself is somehow amended as a result of introducing a multilateral regime in international investment law, the introduction of the court system may not be able to address these problems. Any contribution, if any, should be minimal or marginal. If anything, the fragmentation phenomenon can become more acute with the introduction of bilateral investment courts from agreements to agreements. In considering introducing an investment court, all these related legal and practical issues should be contemplated at the same time. Apparently, the current proposal of the EU has not addressed these legal and practical issues in an in-depth manner. In any event, it is time for Korea to keep abreast with various reform proposals of international investment agreements and ISDS proceedings.

참고문헌 (65)

  1. 강유덕, "최근 EU의 FTA 정책 동향과 향후 전망", KIEP 오늘의 세계경제, 15(26) (2015)
  2. 박덕영, "국제투자법" (2012), 박영사
  3. Alvarez, Gloria Maria, "A Response to the Criticism against ISDS by EFILA", J. International Arbitration, 33(1), pp.10~11 (2016)
  4. "AmCham EU Response to EU Proposal for Investment Protection and Court System for TTIP: European Commission Proposal for an Investment Court System a Step Backwards and Would Weaken Investment Protection" (2016)[URL]
  5. Andelic, Ksristina, "Why ICSID Doesn’t Need an Appellate Procedure and What to Do Instead, Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century", pp.498~ (2015), Brill Nijhoff
  6. Ankersmit, Laurens, "The Compatibility of Investment Arbitration in EU Trade Agreements with the EU Judicial System", Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 13(46), pp.48~ (2016)
  7. Bronckers, Marco, "Is Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Superior to Litigation Before Domestic Courts? An EU View on Bilateral Trade Agreements", Journal of International Economic Law, 18 (2015)
  8. Bondar, Kateryna, "Annulment of ICSID and Non-ICSID Investment Awards: Differences in the Extent of Review", Journal of International Arbitration, 32(6), pp.621~ (2015)
  9. Carreteiro, Mateus Aimoré, "Appellate Arbitral Rules in International Commercial Arbitration", Journal of International Arbitration, 33(2), pp.185~ (2016)
  10. "Investment Court System Put to the Test: New EU Proposal Will Perpetuate Investors’ Attacks on Health and Environment" (2016)[URL]
  11. "Investment Court System put to the test: New EU proposal will perpetuate investors’ attacks on health and environment" (2016)[URL]
  12. "Response to the European Commission’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement “Reform” Proposal, Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue" (2016)[URL]
  13. Guzman, Andrew T., "International Tribunals: A Rational Choice Analysis", U. Pa. L. Rev, 157(171), pp.225~ (2008)
  14. "Commission Proposes New Investment Court System for TTIP and Other EU Trade and Investment Negotiations" (2015)[URL]
  15. "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Trade in Services, Investment and E-Commerce, Chapter II- Investment, Commission draft text TTIP –investment" (2016)[URL]
  16. "Reading Guide to the Draft Text on Investment Protection and Investment Court System in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)"[URL]
  17. "Proposal for a Council Decision Authorising the Commission to Negotiate a Convention to Establish a Multilateral Court on Investment on Behalf of the EU in Line with Article 218 of the Treaty Together With Negotiating Directives" (2016)[URL]
  18. "Commission Proposes New Investment Court System for TTIP and Other Negotiations" (2015)[URL]
  19. "Reading Guide, European Commission - Fact Sheet" (2015)[URL]
  20. "EU Finalises Proposal for Investment Protection and Court System for TTIP, European Commission - Press Release" (2015)[URL]
  21. "CETA: EU and Canada Agree on New Approach on Investment in Trade Agreement" Press Release, European Commission –Press Release" (2016)[URL]
  22. "The EU and Vietnam Finalise Landmark Trade Deal, European Commission News Archive" (2015)[URL]
  23. "European Parliament Resolution of 8 July 2015 Containing the European Parliament’s Recommendations to the European Commission on the Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2014/2228(INI)), S2(d)(xv)"[URL]
  24. "ETUC Position on Commission’s Proposal for an Investment Court System in TTIP and CETA" (2016)[URL]
  25. "Investment Court System: ISDS in Disguise, Ten Reasons Why the EU’s Proposal Doesn’t Fix A Fundamentally Flawed System" (2015)[URL]
  26. 2015, , ~
  27. Gómez, Katia Fach, "International Investment Law and ISDS: Mapping Contemporary Latin America, in Katia Fach Gomez and Catharine Titi (eds), The Latin American Challenge to the Current System of Investor-State Dispute Settlement", Journal of World Investment and Trade: Special, 17(4) (2016)
  28. "Joint Statement by European Commissioner for Trade and Canada’s Minister of International Trade on Canada-EU Trade Agreement" (2016)[URL]
  29. "From ISDS To ICS: A Leopard Can’t Change Its Spots, Position Paper On The Commission Proposal For An Investment Court System In TTIP" (2016)[URL]
  30. "Abstract of The EU Proposal on the Investment Court System Seen from a Japanese Perspective, Lecture Series: The European Union as a Global International Actor: External Perceptions" (2016)[URL]
  31. Herrmann, Christoph, "The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Emerging eu Investment Policy", J. World INVEST. TRADE, 15(3-4), pp.570~ (2014)
  32. "U.S. Wary of EU Proposal for Investment Court in Trade Pact" (2015)[URL]
  33. "Investment Protection and Court System for TTIP: European Commission Proposal for an Investment Court System a Step Backwards and Would Weaken Investment Protection" (2016)[URL]
  34. "Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Public Interest and U.S. Domestic Law, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Policy Paper" (2015)[URL]
  35. "Model Bilateral Investment Treaty with Investor-state Dispute Settlement for Industrial Countries, Giving Consideration to the U.S., Project No. 83/15 of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy)"[URL]
  36. "Trade Commissioner, Proposing and Investment Court System, Commission and Its Priorities Blog Post" (2015)[URL]
  37. "Trade Commissioner, Done Deal with Vietnam, Commission and Its Priorities Blog Post"[URL]
  38. "TTIP: 12th Round of Negotiations Concludes, Investment Protection Remains High on the Agenda; Plus Newly Published CETA Text Includes EU’s Investment Court System Proposal, Herbert Smith Freehills Dispute Resolution Arbitration Notes" (2016)[URL]
  39. "Investment Protection in TTIP Negotiation Proposal by the EU-Commission on a Reformed Investment Chapter in TTIP, Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. (BDI) Assessment" (2015)[URL]
  40. Miles, Wendy QC, "Investor-State Dispute Settlement Under the Recently Concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership", IBA Arb. News, 21(25), pp.27~ (2016)
  41. Moskvan, Dominik, "Clash of Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties with EU Law: A Bitter Pill to Swallow", Colum. J. Eur. L, 22(101) (2015)
  42. "Improving the System of Investor-state Dispute Settlement: An Overview, International Investment Perspectives, 2006 Edition, Part II Chapter 7" (2006)[URL]
  43. "The Commonwealth of Australia, (UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12)"[URL]
  44. Uwera, Gisèle, "Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in Future EU Investment-Related Agreements: Is the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order an Obstacle?", LAW &PRAC. INT’L CTS. & TRIBUNALS, 15(1), pp.112~ (2016)
  45. Saulino, J.J., "The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Critique of the Debate over Reform of the ISDS System, Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System:Journeys for the 21st Century" (2015), Brill Nijhoff
  46. Schill, Stephan W., "Editorial: Opinion 2", 13–The End for Dispute Settlement in EU Trade and Investment Agreements?, 2015, pp.16(3), 379~
  47. Schill, Stephan W., "Editorial: US versus EU Leadership in Global Investment Governance", J. World Invest. Trade, 17(1), pp.1~ (2016)
  48. Schill, Stephan W., "The European Commission’s Proposal of an “Investment Court System” for TTIP: Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block for Multilateralizing International Investment Law?", ASIL Insights, 20(9) (2016)
  49. Schill, Stephen W., "From Sources to Discourse: Investment Treaty Jurisprudence as the New Custom?", German Law Journal, 12(05) (2016)
  50. "From Sources to Discourse: Investment Treaty Jurisprudence as the New Custom?" (2011)[URL]
  51. "Investment Protection in TTIP: the European Commission Refuses to Change the System, TTIP- Unfairhandelbar- Campact –PowerShif Publication" (2016)[URL]
  52. "“An International Investment Court: Panacea or Purgatory?”, Columbia FDI Perspectives: Perspectives on Topical Foreign Direct Investment Issues, No. 180" (2016)[URL]
  53. Sourgens, Frédéric G., "Law’s Laboratory: Developing International Law onInvestment Protection as Common Law", Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus, 34(181)
  54. Steindl, Barbara Helene, "ICSID Annulment vs. Set aside by State Courts", YB on Int'l Arb, 4(181) (2015)
  55. "The U.S is Skeptical of the European Commission’s ISDS Proposal, ISDS Blog"[URL]
  56. "The European Union’s Proposal for an International Investment Court:Significance, Innovations and Challenges Ahead, Transnational Dispute Management" (2016)[URL]
  57. "Investment and E-Commerce"[URL]
  58. "Reform Of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search Of A Roadmap, IIA Issue Notes, No.2" (2013)[URL]
  59. "World Investment Report 2015:Reforming International Investment Governance" (2015)[URL]
  60. "Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development 2015" (2015)[URL]
  61. Van Harten, Gus, "Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law" (2007), Oxford University Press
  62. "Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No ARB/12/12, Notice of Arbitration" (2012)[URL]
  63. Venzke, Ingo, "Investor-State Dispute Settlement in TTIP from the Perspective of a Public Law Theory of International Adjudication", The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 17(3), pp.394~ (2016)
  64. "Fit for purposes? The EU’s Investment Court System" (2016)[URL]
  65. Zuleta, Eduardo, "The Challenges of Creating a Standing International Investment Court, Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century" (2015), Brill Nijhoff

관련 논문AI추천

Institutionalizing the International Investment Law Regime －Any Role for the WTO?-이길원법학연구원 · 법학논총2013 · 제37권 제2호투자분쟁 역학관계의 재조정－ISDS 절차 반소 제도 도입 움직임과 법적 함의－이재민국제거래법학회 · 국제거래법연구2022 · 제31권 제1호Alternative Resolution to Investor-State Arbitration-Applying Mediation and Its Prospects김대중한국사법학회 · 비교사법2020 · 제27권 제2호관할권 항변을 통해 본 국제투자분쟁의 법적 문제오현석안암법학회 · 안암법학2020 · 제60호Formation of International Standard for the Administration of Justice through Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism양지숙법학연구소 · 일감법학2013 · 제24호CETA 투자자-국가간 분쟁해결제도에 대한 법적 고찰: 한국-캐나다 FTA와의 비교를 중심으로강준하법학연구소 · 홍익법학2019 · 제20권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

지속가능한 발전을 위한 세계시민교육김광호pp. 3-8국제사법 제26조 제2항의 세 가지 유형의 계약의 준거법이헌묵pp. 9-37국제상사계약에 관한 일반원칙(PICC)하에서 제척기간에 관한 법적 기준심종석pp. 38-69WTO 분쟁해결 동향: 2016년예세민, 신건호pp. 129-144
원문 보기