세계무역기구(WTO) 체제하의 일본 통상정책의 변화: 후지·코닥 필름 분쟁을 중심으로
The Making of Economic Policy of Japan in the WTO Dispute Settlement System: The Japan-U.S.(Fuji-Kodak) Film Dispute
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 논문의 목적은 세계무역기구(WTO) 체제하의 일본 통상정책의 변화 요인들에 대한 경험적 분석을 수행하는 데 있다. 특히, 일본이 WTO의 성립을 계기로 주요 무역마찰 상대국이었던 미국에 대한 통상정책이 어떻게 변화했으며 그 배경(원인)은 무엇이었는지를 분석하고자 하는 것이다. 이를 위해 WTO의 성립을 전후로 해서 발생한 미일간의 「후지-코닥 필름 분쟁」(’93. 9～’98. 4) 사례를 분석하고, 일본 통상정책에 있어서 정부의 행동 변화는 새로운 WTO 제도의 영향을 받고 있었다는 점을 규명하고자 한다. 미일 필름 마찰 초기에 미국은 후지社의 행위에 대해 WTO 관할 이외의 분야로 규정하며 301조에 바탕을 둔 해결을 도모하려고 했지만 일본이 이에 응하지 않았다. 이에 미국은 관련 문제를 WTO에 호소하였으나, 결국은 WTO 분쟁해결절차의 패널에서 패소한다. 이후 WTO가 커버하는 분야 이외 분쟁사례에서 301조가 발동되는 사례는 없었다. 미일 필름 분쟁에 있어서 WTO의 성립(국제 제도의 법제도화)은 결정적인 역할을 했다. 일본 정부는 WTO 설립 이전에는 미국의 301조를 바탕으로 한 2국 간 교섭에 응했다. 그러나, WTO의 성립을 계기로 기존의 301조 정책의 정통성에 대한 불신감이 WTO가맹국간에 확산되어 있었으며, 일본 또한 301조를 거부하고 WTO의 분쟁해결절차를 이용하려고 했다. 만약 WTO가 성립하지 않았다면, 미일 필름 마찰은 완전히 다른 결과를 초래했을 것이다. WTO(제도)의 영향력 증대가 미일 통상마찰의 해결방식에도 중대한 영향을 미치고 있다는 점을 검증하였다. 일본 정부의 행정행태 및 기업관행을 둘러싼 필름 분쟁에 대한 사례분석은 WTO 패널 결정의 법적 논증은 물론 나아가 정치경제적 프로세스를 재점검함으로써 한국의 통상정책 및 경쟁정책 수립에 시사하는 바가 크다고 할 수 있다. 또한 민간분야의 반경쟁적 관행을 문제삼고 있는 점에서 향후 펼쳐질 ‘경쟁정책’이나 ‘경쟁 라운드(Competition Round)’와 관련하여서도 중요한 의미가 있다고 하겠다.
Abstract
This article explains how Japan has successfully adapted itself to the legalization (institutional context) in trade politics. I will argue the role that the World Trade Organization (WTO) can play for the settlement of the disputes in the United States and Japan. I examine the argument in the case of the Fuji-Kodak(Japan-U.S.) Film Dispute, which has been known as the most difficult sector(‘Competition Policy’) for governments to liberalize in the WTO system. The dispute about film between the U.S. and Japan probably represents the most visible and well documented instance of a cross border dispute regarding alleged restrictive and influential business practices in trade. This dispute, which was resolved, raises some important questions about how to address such cross border disputes and what are reasonable answers for the making of economic(trade) policy of Japan in the WTO dispute settlement system. In the 1980s, the U.S. invoked Section 301 and declared the unilateral sanctions against Japan, also had placed too much emphasis in dispute settlement on bilateral government to‐government negotiation as a dispute settlement technique. The aggressive results- oriented approach of the U.S. Trade Representative(USTR) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 was supported by Japanese government’s cooperative trade policy to the U.S. However, the Japanese government was disappointed and stood against the fact that the U.S. had resorted to a unilateral determination under Section 301 after the establishment of the WTO in 1995. Japan willingly complied with accepting the opportunity to resolve any contentious issues under the WTO rules and dispute settlement mechanisms. This article shows that Japanese trade politics in WTO dispute settlement has changed much compared to the GATT days. What is the reason to make Japan change?, That is because, during its early WTO disputes, Japan made sure that U.S. unilateralism would be deterred by a threat of WTO litigation.
참고문헌 (41)
- Barringer, William H., "Competition Policy and Cross Border Dispute Resolution : Lessons Learned from the U.S.?Japan Film Dispute" (1998), George Mason Law Review
- Clough, Mark, "Caught on Film" (1998), Financial Times
- Eastman Kodak Company, "Privatizing Protection" (1995)
- "George Fisher’s Statement" (1996)
- "Hearing of The Trade Sub Committee of The House Ways and Means Committee Subject: US" (1996), Japan Trade Relations chaired By: Representative Philip Crane
- Heilman, Grier Jean, "Japan's Regulation Of Large Retail Stores: Political Demands Versus Economic Interests , University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law" (2001), University of Pennsylvania
- "Japan?Measures Affecting Distribution Services: Request for Consultations by the United States", pp.1, S, WT
- Katz, Richard, "Upset in Geneva, A Guide to the WTO’s Kodak Ruling" (1998), The Oriental Economist Report
- "“KODAK Petitions U.S. Government Under Section 301 of Trade Law,” http:", US, pp.en, corp[DOI]
- "Kodak Requests Antitrust Inquiry in Japan,"New York Times, "Kodak Requests Antitrust Inquiry in Japan" (1996), New York Times
- Komuro, Norio, "Kodak?Fuji Film Dispute and the WTO Panel Ruling", Journal of World Trade, 32(5) (1998)
- Kotabe, Masaaki, "Anticompetitive Practices in Japan: Their Impact on the Performance of Foreign Firms", Praeger
- Office of the United States Trade Representative, "USTR and Department of Commerce Announce Next Steps on Improving Access to the Japanese Market for Film", pp.98~10 (1998), Press Release
- "Sakamoto Letter on Kodak Case" (1996), nside U.S. Trade
- "The KODAK-FUJI FILM Trade Dispute" (1996), CRS Report for Congress
- "The KODAK-FUJI FILM Trade Dispute at the WTO" (1998), CRS Report for Congress
- "The KODAK-FUJI FILM Case at the WTO and the Openness of Japan’s Film Market" (1998), CRS Report for Congress
- "The Trouble Selling Kodak in Japan, Land of Fuji" (1996), New York Times
- "Testimony of George Fisher" (1996), Hearing of the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee
- "The KODAK?FUJI FILM Trade Dispute" (1996), CRS Report for Congress
- "The KODAK?FUJI FILM Trade Dispute at the WTO", pp.97~303 (1998), CRS Report for Congress
- "Sir Leon Brittan and others indicate that they also recognize that the need to deregulate the Japanese economy and to penetrate it is essential to their prosperity as well" (1996), Inside U.S. Trade
- "Panel Report on Japan?Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper", pp.R, T
- "United States Trade Representative, Report to Congress on Section 301 Developments Required By Section 390(a)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 (January 1995-June 1996)", ~
- "USTR(Office of the United States Trade Representative), Statement by USTR?Designate Charlene Barshefsky, Press Release No. 97-12, February 20, 1997", ~ (1997)
- Wildavsky, Ben, "Wolff at Door", ational Journal, 5 (1995)
- 通商産業調査, "不公正貿易報告書1998年度", 通商産業調査?出版
- 間宮勇, "民待遇と制限的商慣習" (1999), 日本?際??法??年報
- 小林秀明, "WTOと日米フィルム紛" (2002), 本の風景社
- 鈴木?文, "日米フィルム??の?緯と意義 上?中?下", pp.644~, NBL
- 田村次朗, "WTOにおける 「貿易と競?」 のゆくえ――日米フィルム事件が?した課題", 日本際法年報第8 (1999)
- 川敏明, "政府と企業による?入制限とWTO" (1997), 日本??協
- 間宮男, "民待遇と制限的商慣習??日米フィルム事件を素材として", 日本際法年報, 8, pp.61~78 (1999)
- 大平哲男, "日米フィルム摩擦の?末" (1998), 日本??協?
- 福島正裕, "日米フィルム??――コダックに?る異質な日本 日本は本?に完全勝利したのか", pp.112~114 (1998), 週刊東洋
- 小室程夫, "日米フィルム事件のパネル報告と非違反申立? 日本?際??法??編 日本?際??法??年報：紛??理から見たWTOの?制", pp.39~60 (1999), 日本?際??法??,
- 間宮勇, "???民待遇と制限的商慣習?前?書"
- 伊藤元重, "通商摩擦はなぜ起きるのか―保護主義の政治???" (2000), NTT出版
- 谷口?紀, "ディフェンシブな提訴" (2000), 日本??協
- "1차 자료: 외무성 정보 공개 개시 문서(外務省情報公開開示文書: 2004-00817)", ~ (2004)
- "기타: 「日本??新聞」 「日?流通新聞」 「朝日新聞」(平成63年度-2000年度版) 「不公正貿易報告書」 Inside U.S. Trade(1985.1～1998.12)", ~ (1998)