나고야의정서에 대한 유럽연합 이행법률(안)의 분석 및 시사점

박원석(Won Seog Park) 서울국제법연구원 2013 서울국제법연구 Vol.20 No.1

나고야의정서는 창의적 모호함 속의 걸작품(a masterpiece in creative ambiguity)``이라는 평가에도 불구하고 국내이행의 측면에서 여러 가지 법적 확실성과 명확성을 확보하지 못하고 있다. 특히 의정서의 적용범위, 효력발생 시기, 이익공유 대상국가, 유전자원 관련 전통지식의 정의, 이행준수의 수준 및 범위. 다자이익공유체제의 설립체계 등에 있어 그러하다. 그러나 나고야의정서의 이러한 모호함은 한편으로는 의정서의 이행범위에 대한 어려움을 유발하고 있지만, 또 다른 한편으로는 당사국에게 많은 재량권을 부여하고 있다고 할 수 있다. 유전자원 이용국을 대표한다고 할 수 있는 유럽연합의 나고야의정서 이행방향은 우리나라나 일본, 캐나다, 호주 등 다른 이용국들의 국내 이행방향에 상당한 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 2012년 유렵연합 환경위원회는 유렵연합 차원에서 나고야의정서를 이행하기 위한 법률(안)을 규정(regulation)의 형태로 마련하여 유럽의회에 제출하였다. 동 규정(안)의 특징은 바이오산업계의 이익을 최대한 보호하기 위한 방향으로 제정되었다는 점이다. 특히 유전자원의 적용대상에 파생물(derivatives)을 명시하지 않은 점, 이익공유의 대상에 후속적 적용 및 상업화 누락, 사전통보동의 (prior informed consent, 이하 PIC)와 상호합의조선(mutually agreed terms)의 대상이 되는 유전자원을 나고야의정서 발효 후 취득된 것에 한정, 이익공유의 대상국을 원산지국뿐만 아니라 제공국까지 확대. 이용자의 준수내용을 적절주의의무(due diligence)로 약화, 처벌의 범위를 단순 벌금 등에 한정하고 있다는 것이다. 그러나 2013년 4월 유럽의회는 유럽연합 환경위원회 규정(안)에 대한 1차 검토를 통해 수정(안)은 사실상 유전자원 제공국의 법률이라고 보여질 만큼 개도국의 입장을 반영하고 있다. 유럽의회의 이러한 국내 이행방향은 독일, 덴마크, 네덜란드 등으로부터 유전자원 가공품의 대부분을 수입하고 있는 우리나라 바이오산업에 과도한 재정적, 행정적, 절차적 부담을 줄 수 있다. Despite of favorable evaluation as “a masterpiece in creative ambiguity”, Nagoya Protocol can be said to be deficient of legal certainty and clarity from the perspective of its domestic implementation. Especially, this criticism is true of its scope, entry into force, benefit-shared country, definition of traditional knowledge associated with generic resources, level and scope of compliance, need for establishment of global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism, etc. This ambiguity causes the Parties some obstacles in determining the level and scope of its domestic implementation, on one hand, and allows considerable flexibility, on the other hand. As a representative of user countries of genetic resources, EU`s domestic implementation policy may cause considerable influence on other user countries such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc. In 2012, EU Environment Commission proposed its draft implementation regulation to EU Parliament in the form of “Regulation”. This Regulation can be assessed to reflect the interests of bio-industries at the maximum level. Especially, omission of derivatives as well as subsequent application and commercialization in the scope of the Protocol, limitation of PIC and MAT to genetic resources accessed after entry into force of the Protocol, expansion of benefit sharing countries up to providing countries, weakening of user compliance obligation to due diligence, simple fine penalties, etc can be found as good examples for its features. However, European Parliament proposed, through its first reading, considerable amendment to the Regulation in April 2013. This Amendment accommodates most of positions which providing countries of genetic resources have defended during the negotiation process. European parliament`s amendment policy can place excessive financial, administrative, and procedural burdens on Korean bio-industries which currently import most of their products based on genetic resources from European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, etc.

우즈베키스탄의 생산물분배계약법제 분석

박원석 ( Won Seog Park ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2009 法學硏究 Vol.19 No.2

Uzbekistan enacted the Law on Product Sharing Agreement(hereinafter, PSA) in 2001 to provide the legal foundations for the relations arising in the process of the conclusion, execution and termination of production-sharing agreements relating to the exploration for deposits and production of mineral products in the territory of Uzbekistan. The PSA is a contract according to which Uzbekistan grants to a foreign investor, on a compensation basis and for a certain period, exclusive rights to a specified subsurface area for the exploration of deposits and the production of mineral products and for related operations. In the meantime, the investor bear all expenses and risks which carrying out the specified operations. This Law was primarily intended to attract foreign direct investment, on a production-sharing-basis, in the exploitation of subsurface areas of unconfirmed values and requiring extensive financial resources and advanced technology and machinery for prospecting operations. Subsurface areas with proven mineral deposits can be granted in the limited conditions such as absence of the financial and technical means necessary for the exploitation of the confirmed large scale mineral deposits, construction of the structures required for their transportation, attraction of advanced technological processes for the exploitation of deposits, the stable economic development of the country, ect. This Law sets forth the procedures and conditions for the granting of the subsurface areas to the investor; the rights and responsibilities for the parties and the bodies established for the joint monitoring of the implementation of the PSA; terms of operations, development of work programs and budgets; accounting and reporting procedures; conditions for taxation and the payment of other tariffs; expense compensation procedures and the terms for production sharing; procedures for the export of investors` production share; the independence of the investor in the matter of product pricing for its share; control procedures over the PSA implementation; dispute resolution procedures; PSA termination procedures, etc.

외환위기 이후 부동산 간접투자제도의 도입과 정책과제

박원석 ( Park Won Seog ) 한국경제지리학회 2003 한국경제지리학회지 Vol.6 No.1

In this study, first, current state and future prospects of indirect real estate investment systems after foreign exchange crisis are analyzed, and second, policy alternatives for activating indirect real estate investment markets are examined. After foreign exchange crisis, various indirect real estate investment systems, such as REITs, ABS and CRC, were introduced. Present market size of indirect real estate investment is not larger than expected. The reasons are the problems of incomplete system on the one hand, and real estate market conditions on the other hand. But long term prospects of indirect real estate investment markets may not be pessimistic. Considering the positive effects of indirect real estate investment systems to the real estate and financial markets, policy supports for activating indirect real estate investment market may be needed. The representative alternatives are reconciliation and integration of indirect real estate investment systems, upgrading the infrastructure of real estate industry, and activating the networks between indirect real estate investment markets and related markets such as financial makets, capital markets, restructuring markets.

LMO/GMO 규제법률 도입방법에 대한 비교법적 고찰

박원석(Won Seog Park) 중앙법학회 2010 中央法學 Vol.12 No.1

Korea, U.S.A, and EU show different introduction of LMO/GMOs regulations. While Korea and EU, as a Party to Biological Safety Protocol, have adopted similar approaches to regulate LMO/GMOs products, U.S.A. has chose its unique or non-specific general LMO/GMOs regulations. EU legislations on LMO/GMOs has been in place since the early 1990s, and they include Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ No L268/1, 18.10.2003), Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (OJ No L.268/24,18.10.2003), Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, Directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of generically modified micro-organisms, Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 on transboundary movement of LMO/GMO. On the other hand, U.S.C. does not have no single statue and no single federal agency to govern the regulation of biotechnology products. As a result, a complex range of laws govern to all foods, drugs and chemicals produced from biotechnology. Under these laws, three federal agencies-the FDA, Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency have primary responsibility for the regulation of biotechnology products.

불법·비보고·비규제 어업 통제를 위한 항구국조치협정의 국내적 이행방안에 관한 연구

박원석(Park, Won-Seog) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2012 法學論文集 Vol.36 No.3

This Article is intended to identify the potential problems inherently existing in Korea's Far-Distance Fishing Industry Act in satisfying the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, and suggest some solutions to them. The IUU Agreement came from the deep concern about the continuation of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and its detrimental effect upon fish stocks, marine ecosystems and the livelihoods of legitimate fishers, and the increasing need for food security on a global basis. It also recognizes that measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing should build on the primary responsibility of flag States and use all available jurisdiction in accordance with international law, including port State measures, coastal State measures, market related measures and measures to ensure that nationals do not support or engage in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. However, the reality evidences that port State measures provide a powerful and cost-effective means of preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. 이 논문의 목적은 IUU 어업을 예방, 방지, 및 근절하기 위한 항구국조치협정을 국내적으로 이행하는데 있어 한국의 원양산업발전법이 내재적으로 안고있는 잠재적 문제점을 확인하고, 그 해결책을 제시하는데 있다. 항구국조치협정은 불법, 비보고, 비규제 어업과 그것이 수산자원, 해양 생태계 및 합법적인 어업 활동을 하는 어민의 생계에 미치는 파괴적인 영향 및 날로 증대되는 전세계 식량 안보 필요성에 대해 깊은 우려속에 탄생하였다. 그리고 불법, 비보고, 비규제 어업을 근절하기 위한 조치는 1차적으로 기국의 책임에 기초해야하며, 항구국 조치, 연안국 조치, 시장 관련 조치 그리고 자국민이 불법, 비보고, 비규제 어업을 지원하거나 이에 가담하지 않도록 보장하기 위한 조치들을 포함하여 국제법에 따라 활용 가능한 모든 권한을 행사해야 한다는 것을 인식하고 있다. 그러나 동 협정은 항구국 조치는 불법, 비보고, 비규제 어업을 예방, 방지 및 근절하는 강력하고 비용대비 효과적인 수단을 제공한다는 것이 현실임을 인식하고 있다.

우리나라 LMO 표시제도의 WTO TBT 협정 합치성 연구

박원석(Won Seog Park) 중앙법학회 2010 中央法學 Vol.12 No.4

As per the mandate of Convention on Biological Diversity, the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety concluded their negotiations to ensure an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of LMO resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Especially, Article 18 of the Protocol requires that LMOs that are subject to international transboundary movement are handled, packaged and transportedunder conditions of safety. To achieve the objective of Article 18 of the Protocol, Article 18.2requires that documentation accompanying LMOs for direct use as FFP clearly identifies that they "may contain" LMOs; for contained use-LMOs, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use,, the contact point for further information, including the name and address of the individual and institution to whom LMOs are consigned; and for LMO that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment, the identity and relevant traits and/or characteristics, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information and as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter. As an implementation of this Protocol, Korea enacted the so-called "LMO Statute and various directives" in 2001, with the entry into force in 2007. However, these directives contain different and stringent handling, packaging, labelling and transportation requirement depending on the intended use of LMO. Certain requirements of these directives constitute the technical regulations in WTO TBT Agreement, and could be alleged to be more stringent than those in WTO TBT Agreement. Article 2.2 of TBT Agreement requires that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Furthermore, it demands that "technical regulation" shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfillment would create. The definition of "technical regulation" is the "document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory, including terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to aproduct, process or production method.The purpose of this Paper is to compare and analyse the requirements under the Cartagena Protocol, WTO TBT Agreement, and Korea`s LMO related regulations.

WTO SPS 위생조치의 적법성에 관한 연구

박원석(Won Seog Park) 중앙법학회 2007 中央法學 Vol.9 No.2

생물다양성협약과 부속의정서상 유전자원 염기서열정보의 협상쟁점과 논의동향

박원석(Park, Won Seog) 중앙법학회 2020 中央法學 Vol.22 No.3

생물다양성협약 및 부속의정서상 유전자원 디지털염기서열정보와 관련된 치열한 논쟁은 2015년 합성생물학 특별기술전문가그룹과 제20차 과학기술부속기구회의(SBSTTA 20)에서 합성생물학의 실무적 정의를 마련하는 과정에서 처음으로 발생하였다. 그러나 이후 당사국총회와 SBSTTA 22, DSI 특별기술전문가 그룹회의 등을 개최하였음에도 불구하고 DSI의 협약의 의정서의 적용성, 즉 접근 및 이익공유 문제는 합의에 도달하지 못하였다. 제14차 CBD 당사국총회는 DSI 대한 합의에 도달하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 DSI의 개념적 명확성이 확립되어야 한다는 것을 느끼게 되었고, 이를 위해 3개의 용역을 발주하였다. 이를 위해, 당사국들은 먼저 유전자원 DSI에 대한 개념적 명확성을 위해 추가적인 작업이 필요하지만, 상호보완적인 생물다양성협약의 세가지 목적을 위해 DSI의 중요성을 인정하였다. 둘째, 당사국들은 유전자원 DSI에 대한 접근 및 이용은 생물다양성, 식량안보, 인간, 동물, 식물의 건강 분야에 대한 과학적 연구뿐만 아니라 상업적 그리고 비상업적 활동에도 기여한다는 것을 인하였다. 셋째, 많은 국가는 유전자원 DSI 접근, 이용, 생성, 분석을 위한 추가적인 능력이 필요하다는 것을 인정하며, 당사국, 비당사국, 관련 기구는 생물다양성의 보존과 지속 가능한 이용 그리고 이익공유를 위한 DSI의 접근, 이용, 생성, 분석을 지원하기 위해 능력형성 및 기술이전을 적절한 바에 따라 지원할 것을 권장하기로 하였다. 마지막으로 그러나 가장 중요한 합의는 유전자원을 이용을 목적으로 접근할 때, 상호합의조건에 해당 유전자원 DSI의 상업적 그리고/또는 비상업적 이용으로부터 발생하는 이익을 포함할 수 있다고 합의하였다는 것이다. 협상가들은 유전자원 DSI의 이용으로부터 발생하는 이익공유에 대해 당사국들간 이견이 있지만, 협약의 세가지 목적과 제15.7조 이행을 강화할 목적으로 동 결정문에 확립된 절차를 통해 post-2020 GBF 작업반에서 논의하기로 합의하였다. 따라서 동 작업반과 SBSTTA 24 그리고 SBI 3에서 선진국과 개도국간의 “유전자원의 이용”에 대한 정의에 DSI의 포함성 여부에 대한 치열한 논쟁이 예상된다. The intensive debate on the digital sequence information on genetic resources started in the process of formulating the operational definition for synthetic biology in 2015 Ad Hoc technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology and SBSTTA 20. However, the subsequent meetings in the COP 14, SBSTTA 22 and Ad Hoc technical Expert Group on DSI on genetic resources failed to reach an agreement on the applicability of such DSI to the COP, Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya Protocol. especially benefit-sharing issues. COP 14 realized that first and foremost, there must be established the conceptual clarity for them to reach an agreement. First, the negotiators recognized the importance of digital sequence information on genetic resources for the three objectives of the Convention which are mutually supportive. Simultaneously, they also recognized that further work is needed to provide conceptual clarity on digital sequence information on genetic resources. Second, they noted that access to and use of digital sequence information on genetic resources could contribute to scientific research as well as to other non-commercial and commercial activities in areas such as biological diversity, food security and human, animal and plant health. Third, they also recognized that further capacity to access, use, generate and analyse digital sequence information on genetic resources is needed in many countries. To this end, they encourage Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to support capacity-building and technology transfer, as appropriate, to assist in the access, use, generation and analysis of digital sequence information on genetic resources for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and benefit-sharing. Fourth, it was noted that that when genetic resources are accessed for their utilization, mutually agreed terms can cover benefits arising from the commercial and/or non-commercial use of digital sequence information on these genetic resources, in accordance with applicable domestic measures. Finally, the negotiators compromised that as there is a divergence of views among Parties regarding benefit-sharing from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, they agreed to commit to working towards resolving this divergence through the process established in the present decision, i.e, the Working Group on Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, with the aim of strengthening the fulfilment of the third objective of the Convention and Article 15, paragraph 7, without prejudice to the circumstances to which this article applies. Therefore, it is anticipated that both developed and developing countries will have the ‘nails and toes’ bickering in the Working Group above, SBSTTA and SBI, with regard to the applicability of the definition, “utilization of genetic resources” in the Article 2 of Nagoya Protocol to the DSI on genetic resources.

세상읽기 : 노동운동과 시민운동의 새로운 연대관계 모색

박원석 ( Park Won Seog ) 한국노동사회연구소 1998 노동사회 Vol.21 No.-

나고야의정서의 국내 이행 필요사항 분석

박원석 ( Won Seog Park ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2013 고려법학 Vol.0 No.68

2010년 10월 일본 나고야에서는 생물다양성협약의 3개 목적 중 하나인 유전자원에 대한 접근과 이용으로부터 발생하는 이익을 자원제공국과 이용국이 공정하고 공평하게 나누는 방법과 절차에 관한 나고야 의정서 채택되었다. 지금까지는 외국의 유용한 유전자원을 마음대로 사용하던 것을 이제는 사전에 통보하여 사용허가를 받아야 하고, 이익에 대하여는 분할방법을 위한 계약을 체결하며, 계약의 이행사항을 보고하고 입증할 방법을 제시하고, 기술이전이나 지적재산권은 어떻게 할 것인지 등에 대하여 합의 하여야 한다. 국가도 외국의 생물유전자원을 국내로 반입하는 경우 원산지국의 PIC을 받았는지, 이익의 공유방법이나 절차 등을 위한 상호합의조건(mutually agreed terms, 이하 MAT)을 규정한 계약을 체결하였는가를 확인할 의무를 부담함. 또한 생물유전자원이 국내에서 연구, 개발되어 상품화되는 경우 그 이용사항을 적절하고 효과적으로 감시하기 위한 법률적 절차를 마련하여야 한다. 의정서는 생물유전자원뿐만 아니라 관련 전통지식(traditional knowledge)의 이용에 대하여도 규정하고 있다. 그러나 모든 전통지식이 아니라 생물 유전자원과 관련이 있어야 하고, 지역토착민사회(indigenous and local communities, 이하 ILC)가 보유하고 있는 전통지식에 한정된다. 우리나라는 의정서의 법적 확실성 및 명확성 결여로 향후 엄청난 분쟁을 유발할 것으로 예상되므로 정부간 후속 회의 등을 통하여 대응전략을 마련하는 것이 시급하다. In October 2010, Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in Nagoya, Japan, to fulfill one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD). Although any person or entity had been, so far, at liberty to exploit the genetic resources within the jurisdiction of other countries, this Protocol mandates it to obtain the prior informed consent, establish the mutually agreed terms, report and verify its utilization of genetic resources, and agree upon the appropriate transfer of relevant technologies and intellectual property rights. Parties to the Protocol also are obliged to confirm the obtention of PIC from country of origin of imported genetic resources or from provider country of such resources, as well as establishment of MAT. Furthermore, they are under obligation to establish legal systems to properly and effectively monitor the utilization of foreign genetic resources when such resources are researched and developed for subsequent application and commercialization. The Protocol also regulates the utilization of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources which are held by indigenous and local communities(ILC). It is notable to confirm the limited scope of such TK. It is urgent for Korea to formulate implementation strategies through subsequent Intergovernmental Committee on Nagoya Protocol to counteract with future enormous disputes which would arise out of lack of legal certainty and clarity inherent in the Protocol.