공서양속에 반하는 중재판결: 경제제재에 대한 분석을 중심으로
Arbitration awards against public policy; in regards to economic sanctions
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper examines issues concerning conflicts between arbitral awards and public interests, particularly with respect to economic sanctions. Sanctions have been widely used by political entities, such as States and organizations, as means to promote public interests and to resolve cross-border disputes. In particular, economic sanctions have been increasingly more visible in recent years due to the accelerating fragmentation of the international communities, and their magnitude and range of the impacts have grown accordingly. For example, the U.S. and the EU have imposed economic sanctions on Russia and related persons in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. recently re-introduced a comprehensive economic sanction on Iran. One of the notable impacts of the sanctions, particularly economic sanctions, is that on international arbitration. Sanctions are essentially built on the notion of the protection of public interests, and public interests are some of the few grounds upon which recognition and enforceability or arbitral awards may be rejected. However, jurisprudence on such conflict between sanctions and arbitral awards have not been sufficiently addressed in Korea because court case and administrative decision records on this conflict have not been sufficiently accumulated. In this regard, this paper begins with offering a survey of the concept of public interests, economic and trade sanctions, arbitral awards and their enforceability, and the relationships between them. It then examines the mechanism upon which public interests, trade and economic sanctions may lead certain arbitral awards unenforceable. Next, the paper suggests judiciaries’ balanced approach toward the public interests protected by trade and economic sanctions and the predictability and fairness in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Finally, this paper concludes with the methods of the implementation of such balanced approach.
Abstract
This paper examines issues concerning conflicts between arbitral awards and public interests, particularly with respect to economic sanctions. Sanctions have been widely used by political entities, such as States and organizations, as means to promote public interests and to resolve cross-border disputes. In particular, economic sanctions have been increasingly more visible in recent years due to the accelerating fragmentation of the international communities, and their magnitude and range of the impacts have grown accordingly. For example, the U.S. and the EU have imposed economic sanctions on Russia and related persons in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. recently re-introduced a comprehensive economic sanction on Iran. One of the notable impacts of the sanctions, particularly economic sanctions, is that on international arbitration. Sanctions are essentially built on the notion of the protection of public interests, and public interests are some of the few grounds upon which recognition and enforceability or arbitral awards may be rejected. However, jurisprudence on such conflict between sanctions and arbitral awards have not been sufficiently addressed in Korea because court case and administrative decision records on this conflict have not been sufficiently accumulated. In this regard, this paper begins with offering a survey of the concept of public interests, economic and trade sanctions, arbitral awards and their enforceability, and the relationships between them. It then examines the mechanism upon which public interests, trade and economic sanctions may lead certain arbitral awards unenforceable. Next, the paper suggests judiciaries’ balanced approach toward the public interests protected by trade and economic sanctions and the predictability and fairness in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Finally, this paper concludes with the methods of the implementation of such balanced approach.
참고문헌 (42)
- 김규진, "국제계약분쟁과 일방적 경제제재 – 이른바 ‘Legal Norm 접근법’에 대한 비판적 고찰을 중심으로", 법학연구, 32(3) (2022)
- 김규진, "국제물품매매계약 상 채무불이행 책임 면제 사유로서의 경제제재 – 외국 판례를 중심으로", 기업법연구, 36(1) (2022)
- "국제사회의 대러시아 제재에 따른 한국 정부의 조치" (2022)[URL]
- "대법원 2010. 4. 8. 선고 2009두17018 판결", ~
- "대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2007두20638 판결", ~
- "대법원 2018. 12. 13. 선고 2016다49931 판결", ~
- 이동은, "강제노동 상품에 대한 수입통제의 국제법적 타당성 및 함의 – 제3국의 대응조치에 관한 논의를 중심으로", 국제법연구, 20(1) (2022)
- 이동은, "일방적 경제제재 조치의 국제법적 타당성 및 대북제재 관련 시사점", 국제법학회논총, 65(2) (2020)
- 윤진수, "공서양속에 대한 총괄보고(General Report)", 민사법학, (85) (2018)
- 외교부, "우리 정부의 대북 독자제재 지정", 보도자료, 외교부 한반도평화교섭본부 북핵정책과, 기획재정부 국제금융국 외환제도과, 금융위원회 금융정보분석원 기획행정실, ~ (2023)
- "안보리 제재 (sanction)" (2007)[URL]
- 육영춘(Ying-Chun Lu), "외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행거부와 관련한 중국법원의 사례연구", 중재연구, 30(2), pp.69~90 (2020)[DOI]
- "국제제재 개요, KOSTI 국가별 제재현황"[URL]
- "제제란?, KOSTI 국가별 제재현황"[URL]
- "제재안내 범위, KOSTI 국가별 제재현황"[URL]
- "러시아 수출금지 품목 확대, 5만달러 넘는 자동차, 기계 포함"[URL]
- "러시아 ‘동결자산’에 붙은 이자만 1조 원...”우크라 지원“ EU의 큰 그림?"[URL]
- "美, 이라크 내 이란 자산 동결 푼다…국내 묶인 70억달러는?"[URL]
- Ahan Gadkari, "EU Interference in Arbitration: Special Emphasis On the Effect of Unilaterla Sanctions", J. Int’l Law & Com, 3, pp.61~68 (2022)
- FC 35834,
- "ConocoPhilips steps up global push to collect PdV debt"[URL]
- Beibei Zhang, "When International Commercial Arbitration meets China’s sanction laws : livign together but remaining apart?", Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2022)
- Eric De Brabandere, "Research Handbook on Sanctions and International Arbitration" (2016), Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies
- Hamish Lal, "Eu, Uk & Us "Sanctions': Procedural and Substantive Impact on International Arbitration?", Disp. Resol. Int'l, 109, pp.119~120 (2022)
- "New York Convention: Public Policy Exception" (2003)[URL]
- "Sovereign Immunity from Execution (in Enforcement)"[URL]
- KOTELNIKOV, "Economic sanctions, arbitrability and public policy", International arbitration law review (2020)
- Liliia Andreevskikh (Liliia Andreevskikh), "Public Policy Exception under Russian Law as a Ground for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards", 중재연구, 32(3), pp.47~70 (2022)[DOI]
- Michael P. Malloy, "Economic Sanctions and Retention of Counsel", Admin. L.J. Am. U, 9, pp.515~5424 (1995)
- "New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards)", ~
- "FAQs - Venezuela Sanctions" (2023)[URL]
- "Parsons&Whittemore Overseas Co v. Societe General de I’industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F2d 969, 977 (2d Cir 1974)", ~
- Petra Butler, "Kastom: A Public Policy Excpetion Under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards", Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, 7(1) (2018)
- Reinmar Wolff, "New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Aribtral Awards of 10 June 1958 – Article-by-Article Commentary" (2012), Beck, Hart and Nomos
- "Report of the Security Council for 2022, UN 문서 A", 77, United Nations, pp.2022, ~
- Richard A. Cole, "The Public Policy Exception to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards", Journal on Dispute Resolution, 1(2)
- Samantha Nataf, "The French approach to enforcement of arbitral awards, international public policy and corruption", 중재연구, 33(3), pp.31~68 (2023)[DOI]
- "Enforcement of arbitral awards against States under Sanctions: a new challenge"[URL]
- "Sanctions"[URL]
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Agencies Assess Impacts on Targets, and Studies Suggest Several Factors Contribute to Sanctions’ Effectiveness", United States Government Accountability Office, ~ (2019)
- "Venezuela: CITGO Breakup Looms with Protection End in Sight"[URL]
- Vera Gowlland-Debbas, "National Implementation of United Nations Sanctions: A Comparative Study" (2004), Martinus Nijhoff