미국의 반덤핑조치에 대한 대응방안 연구

이환규(Lee, Hwan-Gyu) 미국헌법학회 2012 美國憲法硏究 Vol.23 No.3

본 논문에서는 미국의 반덤핑조치에 대한 대응방안을 수립하기 위해 일차적으로 미국의 반덤핑절차를 검토한 후 미국 반덤핑조치의 운용 추이와 경향을 분석하였으며, 이를 바탕으로 하여 미국의 반덤핑조치에 대한 대응방안을 정부 차원에서의 대응방안과 기업 차원에서의 대응방안으로 나누어 살펴보았다. 우리나라는 전세계적으로 두 번째로 많은 반덤핑 제소를 당하고 있고, 미국으로부터도 세 번째로 많은 반덤핑 제소를 당하고 있는 국가라는 현실을 고려할 때, 반덤핑 관련 분쟁의 동향과 법리 발전에 지속적인 관심을 기울일 필요가 있고, 외국의 반덤핑조치에 대해 가급적 사전에 대비하고, 분쟁발생 시에도 초창기에 주도면밀하게 대응함으로써 조기에 분쟁을 종결시킬 수 있도록 다양한 방법을 강구하는 것이 필요하다. In recent years antidumping has been catapulted to the forefront of most controversial practices in international trade. Broadly defined, dumping is international price discrimination. It occurs when an exporter in the importing country sells product at a price below that at which it sells like product in its domestic market. Under U.S. law, dumping occurs when subject product is imported into the United States and sold at less than fair value. The administration of U.S. antidumping law is shared between the U.S. Department of Commerce(USDOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission(USITC). USDOC’s task is to determines whether dumped imports cause a material injury to a domestic industry which produces a like product. The recent data shows that U.S. has frequently relied on antidumping measures to restrict imports from foreign countries and protect domestic industries. Korea is one of major countries whose goods are most affected by USA’s antidumping measures. To minimize our industry’s affection, we have to prepare countermeasures against U.S.A.’s antidumping measures. This article suggests our countermeasures against USA’s antidumping measures. In this paper, Chapter Ⅱ examines the procedures of dumping in U.S. Chapter Ⅲ shows major trends in the use of antidumping measures taken by U.S. Finally, countermeasures of Korea against USA’s antidumping measures will be presented.

독도영유권에 대한 국제법적 쟁점

이환규 ( Hwan Gyu Lee ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2010 영남법학 Vol.0 No.30

WTO 관세평가협정에 관한 연구

이환규(Lee Hwan-Gyu) 국제법평론회 2011 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.34

Customs valuation is the method applied to establish the customs value of imported goods for customs duty purposes. The importation and exportation of products are usually subject to various tariffs, duties, other charges, and related restrictions for customs purposes in every country. The percentage rate of customs duties to be levíed on a given product is calculated by the value of that product, therefore the valuation is extremely important for the correct determination of customs duties. There are diverse methods for estimating the value of a product at customs, which can be just as problematic as the calculation of the actual customs duty imposed. Discretionary reliance on a method can cause anomalies and the imposition of an exaggerated amount of customs duties, with trade-restrictive effects. Introducing some degree of uniformity in the method of customs valuation and its regulation became necessary, and this was accomplished by Article Ⅶ of GATT 1994 and WTO Customs Valuation Agreement. The Agreement has elaborated rules of Article Ⅶ of GATT 1994 for their uniform and consistent application and implementation. It seeks to introduce uniformity, transparency, and fairness in standardizing and harmonizing national customs valuation methods, to the exclusion of all arbitrary and fictitious valuation for customs purposes. It has prescribed the transaction value of an imported product as a basis for its customs value in order to establish a non-discriminatory and neutral system that is responsive to modern commercial realities and valuation procedures. This article deal with the contents of the Agreement and analyses methods of customs valuation.

WTO 보조금협정 제2조상 특정성 기준

이환규(Lee, Hwan-Gyu) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2010 法學論叢 Vol.17 No.1

WTO 보조금협정에서 새로이 도입된 개념인 특정성 개념은 상계조치를 취하기 위한 주요 기준이 된다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 특정성 개념이 보조금협정에 도입된 과정을 살펴볼 것이며, 특정성에 대해 규정하고 있는 보조금협정 제2조를 중심으로 특정성 개념을 분석할 것이다. 보조금협정 제2조 에서의 특정성 개념은 기업 특정성, 지역 특정성 그리고 금지보조금의 특정성 문제 등으로 나누어 볼 수 있는데, 각각에 대한 조문 분석을 통해 특정성 개념을 명확하게 이해하고 적용함으로써 다자간 무역체제 내에서 보조금 규제 문제에 대해 효율적으로 대처할 수 있는 방안을 모색하고자 한다. Only subsidies which are specific within the meaning of art. 2 SCMA can be subject to the discipline on prohibited subsidies in part Ⅱ, actionable under part Ⅲ SCMA, or subject to countervailing measures in accordance with part Ⅴ SCMA. Therefore, the correct understanding and application of art. 2 SCMA play a key role in the effective and sound implementation of multilateral subsidy disciplines. The concept of specificity was basically developed in the U.S. administrative and statutory implementation of Countervailing Duty Law. This was introduced explicitly in the U.S. Countervailing Duty Statute of 1979 implementing the Tokyo Round Code. The notion of specificity was first discussed in the Uruguay Round negotiation jointly with the definition of subsidy. The drafting history of the SCMA reveals that the specificity of subsidy was conceived and introduced as a necessary condition in order for a subsidy to become actionable or subject to countervailing measures. Pursuant to art. 2 SCMA, a finding of specificity can be based upon a showing that the benefits of a program are specially provided either de jure or de facto. Where the authority providing the subsidy, or the legislation pursuant to which the authority operates, expressly limits access to the subsidy to an enterprise or industry, the subsidy is specific as a matter of law. Where there are reasons to believe that a subsidy may be specific as a matter of fact, the subsidy is specific if one or more of the following factors exist: (1) the use of a subsidy programme by a limited number of certain enterprises; (2) the predominant use by certain enterprises; (3) the granting of disproportionately large amounts of subsidy to certain enterprises; (4) the manner in which discretion has been exercised by the granting authority in the decision to grant a subsidy. Specificity may take various form pursuant to art. 2 SCMA: (1) enterprise specificity, when the government subsidizes a particular enterprise or several particular enterprises; (2) industry specificity, when the government subsidizes a particular economic sector or several economic sectors; (3) regional specificity, when the government subsidizes the economic operators within a specific region or regions forming part of its territorial jurisdiction; and (4) specificity of prohibited subsidies. This article is intended to clarify the definition of specificity by analyzing art. 2 SCMA. It helps us discipline only those subsidies that produce trade-distorting effects and avoid disciplining subsidies which are instruments of the legitimate public policies.

EU의 무역구제제도 연구

이환규(Lee, Hwan-Gyu) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.50 No.-

EU의 무역구제제도는 EU법과 WTO법을 법적 기반으로 하여 크게 반덤핑제도, 보조금에 대한 상계관세제도, 세이프가드제도로 구성된다. EU의 무역구제제도는 여타 WTO 회원국들의 무역구제제도와 대동소이하나, EU법상 무역구제조치를 취하기 위해서는 WTO법에서 요구하는 요건 외에도 공동체의 전반적인 이익에 반하지 않아야 된다는 요건을 추가적으로 심사해야 한다는 점과 최소부과원칙을 시행하고 있다는 특징을 지니고 있다. EU의 무역구제제도는 불공정무역행위를 억제해 국내와 외국의 생산자 간 공정한 경쟁 환경을 유지한다는 무역구제의 취지에 가장 충실한 제도이며, 여타 국가들이 무역구제제도를 자국의 국내산업을 보호하기 위한 수단으로 남용하고 있는데 반해, EU는 글로벌 경제위기로 인해 보호주의가 고조되는 분위기에서도 무역구제조치발동을 자제함으로써 가장 선진적인 무역구제시스템을 운용하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있다. 이러한 EU의 무역구제제도는 무역구제제도의 국제적 논의동향의 풍향계와 같은 역할을 하며, 향후 FTA 협상뿐만 아니라 WTO 규범 협상 등에서도 우리 입장을 수립하는데 참고할만하다. Trade defence instruments, such as antidumping measure, countervailing measure and safeguard measure are ways of protecting European production against international trade distortions. The EU’s initiation activity expressed in average initiations has been decreasing. The number of anti-subsidy and antidumping measures in force is at a historical low and the overall number of measures in force in the EU is much lower than in other major WTO members. The European Commission is responsible for investigating allegations of dumping by exporting producers in non-EU countries. It usually opens an investigation after receiving a complaint from the EU producers concerned, but it can also do so on its own initiative. A subsidy is a financial contribution from a government or public body which, in the case of trade, affects the pricing of goods imported into the EU. The EU may impose duties to neutralize the benefit of such a subsidy on imported goods when the subsidy is limited to a specific industry or group of industries. Safeguards are intended for situations in which an EU industry is affected by an unforeseen, sharp and sudden increase of imports. The objective is to give the industry a temporary breathing space to make necessary adjustments. In this paper, Chapter Ⅱ examines the trade defence instruments in the EU. Chapter Ⅲ shows major trends in the use of trade defence measures taken by EU.

EU에서의 교토메커니즘의 이행

이환규(Lee Hwan Gyu) 한국국제경제법학회 2010 국제경제법연구 Vol.8 No.2

온실가스의 의무감축과 교토메커니즘을 주요 내용으로 하는 교토의정서가 EU의 주도적인 노력으로 발효되었다는 점과 EU가 교토의정서에 따른 1차 의무이행 기간 이전인 2005년 배출권거래제를 시작한 것은 EU가 기후변화정책에 있어서 중요한 역할을 수행하고 있다는 것을 보여주고 있다. 또한, EU는 교토의정서에 따른 1차 의무이행 기간 이후에도 기후보호 대책을 지속적으로 강구하면서 온실가스감축조치를 강화시켜 나가고 있다. 이미 2020년까지 1990년 대비 30-40%의 온실가스감축 목표를 수립하였는데 다른 국가들이 상응한 조치를 취할 경우 이 목표치를 상향조정할 계획이기도 하다. 교토의정서는 감축목표를 달성하는 비용을 최소화하기 위하여 시장에 기초한 신축성 메커니즘을 도입하였는데, 배출권거래제도, 청정개발체제, 공동이행제도 등 세 가지 국제협력 수단을 교토메커니즘이라고 한다. 본 논문은 교토메커니즘의 이행의 모범이 되고 있는 EU의 배출권거래제도, 개발체제, 공동이행제도 등에 대해 살펴보았다. 특히, EU의 배출권거래제도의 내용과 개정지침을 중심으로 분석하였다. EU played a key role in ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. And the entering into force of the EU's emissions trading system in 2005 even before the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol illustrates the significant role played by the EU in terms of climate change policy. EU has been continuously strengthening measures for further reduction of greenhouse gas emissions even after the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol was over. EU already have set a goal of 30-40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with 1990 levels in case other countries should take similar measures. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Parties may use the following three market-based mechanism to lower the overall costs of achieving emission targets: Emissions Trading System, Clean Development Mechanism, and Joint Implementation. This article analyses the implementation of Kyoto Mechanism In Europe, and focuses on the EU-ETS and amending Directives.

美國 相計關稅法上 特定性의 原則

이환규(Lee Hwan gyu) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2002 통상법률 Vol.- No.47

법률상 특정성과 사실상 특정성-미국 상무부와 국제통상법원 판정을 중심으로-

이환규(Lee Hwan Gyu) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2003 성균관법학 Vol.15 No.2

A countervailable subsidy exists under U.s. Countervailing Duty Law when the Department of Commerce finds that a forelgu government program provides selechve treatment to an enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industnes, and provides a countervailable benefit with respect to the merchandise. The first requirement is specificity test. The concept of specificity was basically developed in the U.S. admini­strative and statutory Implementation of Countervailing Duty Law. This was introduced explicitly in the U.S. Countervailing Duty Statute of 1979 implemenhng the Tokyo Round Code. The relevant inquiry regarding specificity is whether a competitive advantage bestowed by the government IS given to a parhcular enterpnse or industry, or group thereof, such that the benefit is capable of causing a misallocation of a country's economic resources. Commerce has repeatedly stressed that there is no preCise formula for determining whether specIficity exists and that such determinations must be made on a program-by-program basis. Nonetheless, many of the factors that Commerce considers relevant remain constant, even though the weight that Commerce gives any particular factor or the methodology that it uses varies from one case to another. Putsuant to the Countervailing Duty Law, a finding of specificity can be based upon a showing that the benefits of a program are specially provided either de jure or de facto. Where the authonty providing the subsidy, or the legislation pursuant to which the authority operates, expressly limits access to the subsidy to an enterprise or mdustry, the subsidy is specific as a matter of law. Where there are reasons to believe that a subsidy may be specific as a matter of fact, the subsidy is specific if one or more of the following factors exist: First, the actual recipients of the subsidy, whether considered on an enterprise or industry basis, are limited in number. Second, an enterprise or industry is a predominant user of the subsidy. Third, an enterprise or industry receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy. Forth, the manner in which the authority providing the subsidy has exercised discretion in the decision to grant the subsidy indicates that an enterprise or industry is favored over others.

WTO 반덤핑협정상 동종상품 정의규정의 개정방안

이환규(Lee. Hwan-Gyu) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2004 성균관법학 Vol.16 No.1

Like product is a central concept in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It appears in numerous provisions, and then defines to which products the rights and obligations of the GATT Agreement apply. Although it is a central concept, and has been around since the origins of GATT in 1947, the definition of like products is not settled. As a result of Uruguay Round, WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement provides the following definition of "like product": Throughout this Agreement the term 'like product' (' produit similaire') shall be interpreted to mean a product which is identicat, i.e. alike in all aspect to the product under consideration, or in the absence of such a product, another product which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration. But this definition obviously leaves much room for interpretation.1n other words, the definition makes like prduct interpreted somewhat flexibly. This paper is aimed to prove that like product in WTO Anti-Dumping Law should be interpreted narrowly.And to get this goal, the definion should be amended as follows: First, like product shall be interpreted to mean a product which is identical, i.e. alike in all aspect to the product under consideration. Second, like product shall be interpreted to mean a product which is identical, i.e. alike in all aspect to the product under consideration, or in the absence of such a product, another product which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics very closely resembling those of the product under consideration. Third, like product shall be interpreted to mean a product which is identical in physical characteristics subject, however, to such variations in presentation which are due to the need to adapt the the product to special conditions in the market of the importing country.

WTO 분쟁해결 이행절차에 관한 연구

이환규(Lee Hwan Gyu),김민진(Kim Min Jin) 한국국제경제법학회 2009 국제경제법연구 Vol.7 No.2

WTO는 세계 자유무역의 진전에 상당한 기여를 하였다. 하지만 WTO 분쟁해결제도는 국제무역질서를 지탱할 수 있는 법적 안정성과 예측 가능성이라는 중요한 요소를 제공하고 있음에도 불구하고 분쟁해결제도의 운용에 있어 한계점을 보이고 있다. WTO 분쟁해결의 주된 목적은 분쟁국 간의 원만한 해결을 유도하고, 신속하고 공정한 무역이다. 따라서 WTO 분쟁해결제도의 절차적인 측면에 있어 지금보다 좀 더 구체적이고 명확한 규정을 가져야 할 것이다. 특히 본 논문에서 살펴본 합리적 이행기간에 있어 우선 통상적인 가이드라인 만을 제시하는 것이 아닌, 특정한 합리적 이행기간을 명확히 제시할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 이러한 합리적 이행기간은 각 해당 사건의 특별한 상황을 고려하여 정해져야 할 것이다. 셋째, 개도국의 특수한 국내 상황을 고려한 개도국에 대한 실효성 있는 예외규정을 두어야 할 것이다. 결론적으로 합리적 이행기간의 확정은 단순한 수학적 계산으로 나오는 결과가 아니다. 따라서 합리적 기간의 정확성은 전체적인 의무 이행 과정에서 평가되어야 할 것이다. WTO has contributed much to world free trade. But WTO Dispute Settlement System appears breaking point in the application of the Dispute Settlement System for all provide legal safety and forecast possibility for international trade order. WTO Dispute Settlement's main purpose is for fair trade. Thus, WTO Dispute Settlement System should have technical details. First, We need a definite standard about the resonable period of time. Second, The reasonable period of time should be decided after considering the particular circumstance in each case. Third, there need to have an exceptional clause considering particular circumstance in developing countries.