FTA투자규정에 있어서 최혜국대우 조항의 적용범위에 관한 중재판정 사례연구
A Study on the Application Scope of Most-Favored Nation Treatment in the FTA Investment Provisions Based on the Arbitral Award Cases
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Investment Agreement is to be a part of FTA, as negotiating together both trade and investment. For example, it has a separate chapter about investment in KORUS FTA contract and is more detailed and inclusive than BIT contents which are traditional investment provisions. It is called to the investment norm of FTA. The investment agreement lures a foreign investment by providing the environment which is stable to the foreign investors. Hence, it plans in goal for the economic development of the home country. In international investment, the arbitration award cases are coming out to be divided into two parts applying MFN provisions in investor protective principles and dispute resolution process; the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation In the case of RosInvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation awarded in 2007, the arbitration tribunal interprets that the application scope of MFN provisions contain the more lucrative dispute provision than other BITs without limitations in entity right of the investor. This judgment is the same view as arbitration tribunal position of Maffezini case. The arbitration tribunal of Plama case has kept out an assertion magnifying the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction. That is, for applying more inclusive investor-nation resolution method from different treaty, tribunal mentioned that MFN provision had to see clearly a point of applying the investor-nation dispute resolution method. Dispute resolution process providing inclusive MFN provision has both the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. it needs ceaselessly to do the monitoring about cases of arbitration award. In conclusion, the point where MFN provisions are applied conclusively is recognized, but it is still controversial whether or not to magnify the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal applying MFN provisions. Therefore, it does not exist clear principle in the theory or in the award cases about the application scope for entity protection provision of MFN. Hence, The Korean government of Korea and local autonomous entities needs to keep their eyes on the trend of the international arbitration award cases in relation to the investment dispute for the future. Also, Korean government or local self-governing group must consider MFN provisions when they make a contract of international investment treaty such as writing concretely the application of MFN provisions from KORUS FTA
Abstract
Investment Agreement is to be a part of FTA, as negotiating together both trade and investment. For example, it has a separate chapter about investment in KORUS FTA contract and is more detailed and inclusive than BIT contents which are traditional investment provisions. It is called to the investment norm of FTA. The investment agreement lures a foreign investment by providing the environment which is stable to the foreign investors. Hence, it plans in goal for the economic development of the home country. In international investment, the arbitration award cases are coming out to be divided into two parts applying MFN provisions in investor protective principles and dispute resolution process; the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation In the case of RosInvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation awarded in 2007, the arbitration tribunal interprets that the application scope of MFN provisions contain the more lucrative dispute provision than other BITs without limitations in entity right of the investor. This judgment is the same view as arbitration tribunal position of Maffezini case. The arbitration tribunal of Plama case has kept out an assertion magnifying the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction. That is, for applying more inclusive investor-nation resolution method from different treaty, tribunal mentioned that MFN provision had to see clearly a point of applying the investor-nation dispute resolution method. Dispute resolution process providing inclusive MFN provision has both the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. it needs ceaselessly to do the monitoring about cases of arbitration award. In conclusion, the point where MFN provisions are applied conclusively is recognized, but it is still controversial whether or not to magnify the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal applying MFN provisions. Therefore, it does not exist clear principle in the theory or in the award cases about the application scope for entity protection provision of MFN. Hence, The Korean government of Korea and local autonomous entities needs to keep their eyes on the trend of the international arbitration award cases in relation to the investment dispute for the future. Also, Korean government or local self-governing group must consider MFN provisions when they make a contract of international investment treaty such as writing concretely the application of MFN provisions from KORUS FTA
참고문헌 (15)
- 김경배, "투자자-국가 분쟁해결(ISDS)의 대상이 된 투자자 보호원칙에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 19(1), pp.121~145 (2009), 한국중재학회
- 김지호, "국제투자중재 최근 동향", 국제투장분쟁연구 (2008), 대한상사중재원
- 김태병, "투자자-국가 분쟁해결제도와 사법부의 행위. in: 국제규범의 현황과 전망" (2008), 법원행정처
- 송상훈, "최혜국대우조항에 관한 연구-국제법위원회의 1978년 최혜국대우조항에 관한 협약초안을 중심으로-", 석사, pp.1989
- 신동철, "GATS에서의 최혜국대우원칙에 관한 연구-바나나분쟁(3차) 및 자동차 산업분쟁을 중심으로-", 석사, pp.2006
- 이성덕, "최혜국대우―과정과 그 개념", 서울국제법연구, 11(1), pp.81~117 (2004), 서울국제법연구원
- 조영정, "WTO 다자간 무역협정에서의 최혜국대우원칙", 국제통상연구, 3(1) (2004), 한국국제통상학회
- 최승환, "국제경제법" (2001), 법영사
- 법무부, "한미FTA 투자분야 연구", ~ (2008)
- Schwarzenberger G., "The Most-Favoured Nation Treatment in British State Practice", B.Y.I.L, 22 (1945)
- Jackson J.H., "The Puzzle of GATT: Legal Aspects of a Surprising Institution", J.W.T.L., pp.131~ (1967)
- Kohona, "Investment Protection Agreement: An Australian Perspective", Journal of World Trade Law, (21) (1987)
- Park William W., "Arbitration and the Fisc", Chicago Journal of International Law, 2 (2003)
- Ustor E., "Most-Favoured-Nation Clause", Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Instalment, 8, pp.412~ (1985)
- Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Thirtieth Session, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, A, "CN.4", SER.A, Add.1 (Part 2) (ILC Report); "Most-Favoured-Nation Clause", Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. Ⅱ (1978)[DOI]
