Partial and Chemoselective Reduction of Nitriles with Metal Diisobutyl-t-butoxyaluminum Hydrides

안덕근,Young Mi Choi,Seong Jib Choi,Ka Young Eom,Hyonseok Hwang 대한화학회 2008 Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society Vol.29 No.11

무역구제조사상 국내산업피해 관련 인과관계 분석

안덕근 법무부 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.86

Under the WTO system, there are two essential qualifying factors to prove causation elements for implementing trade remedy measures: (1) the causal relationship between import increase and injury to the domestic industry and (2) the non-attribution principle. Nevertheless, these two concepts are neither clearly defined in legal provisions nor consistently applied in practice. To find out how those two conditions are actually applied, this paper first analyzes WTO disputes over the causal link and non-attribution issues of antidumping, countervailing and safeguard measures. The current WTO jurisprudence shows a symmetrical approach on causation analysis in implementing all three trade remedy measures. On the ground that safeguard measures are allowed based on fundamentally different objectives from those of antidumping and countervailing measures, there arises a question of whether such practice is proper. In addition, this paper notes that, in practice, the investigating authorities have much discretion in proving the causal link and non-attribution principle and that the most commonly used approaches are simple trend comparison and exclusive dependence on qualitative assessment. These practices have some fundamental econometric problems which are occasionally mentioned even by the WTO panels and the Appellate Body. This paper suggests that it may be worth adopting carefully tailored econometric methods for analysis or at least, developing basic guidelines to consider in the causation analysis. 무역구제제도상 해당 수입과 국내산업 피해간의 인과관계 입증은 관련 무역구제조치의 정당성을 담보하는 핵심적인 사안이다. 인과관계를 적절하게 입증하지 못하는 경우 조치의 부과 자체가 금지되므로 무역구제제도의 골간을 이루고 있는 반면, 인과관계 입증의 실무상 어려움 때문에 무역구제제도 중 사실상 가장 취약하게 운용되는 요소이다. 즉, 인과관계 입증에 관하여 요구되는 제반 법률 요건의 적용에 여전히 자의적이고 임의적인 여지가 많다. 더욱이, WTO협정의 해석과 적용에 있어서도 기존 판례에서 드러나듯이 원론적인 논란의 소지가 상당히 잔존하고 있다. 특히, 인과관계의 분석은 법적 해석과 경제학적 분석간에 괴리가 크게 표출되는 부분으로서 현재까지의 제도 운용 관행과 경험에도 불구하고 여전히 많은 논란의 대상이 되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 무역구제제도에서 요구되는 인과관계 분석에 관한 WTO법체계에서의 법률 해석상 문제점을 지적하고 경제분석상 대안에 대해 검토한다. 이론적인 측면에서는 반덤핑제도와 상계관세제도의 인과관계와 세이프가드제도에서의 인과관계가 현재와 같이 대칭적으로 적용되어야 하는지의 문제가 제기될 수 있다. 이는 세이프가드제도의 취지와 성격에 직결되는 문제로서 향후 논의의 여지가 있다. 실무적인 측면에서는 인과관계 분석에서 현실적으로 난제로 대두되는 비전가분석을 어떻게 합리화하고 개선할 수 있을지 여부가 관건이다. 성격상 계량경제적 분석이 불가피한 사안에 대해 현재와 같이 정성적 분석으로 다루는 방식은 항상 모순적인 법률적용이나 제도의 불확실성 여지를 키우게 된다. 따라서 향후 경제이론 측면에서 보다 설득력 있는 분석기법의 개발이 요구된다.

WTO 체제에서의 남북한교역과 개성공단 관련 통상쟁점 연구

안덕근,PARK JEONG JOON 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2014 국제지역연구 Vol.23 No.4

In spite of numerous political and diplomatic dilemma, internal trade between South and North Korea must be continued and expanded. The Government of Korea, in fact, has enhanced the economic cooperation with the North through Gaesung Industrial Complex. Under the regulations of the WTO system, however, the issues in internal trade could no longer be a sole problem of the two Koreas, but often causes controversies, particularly related to non-discriminatory treatment measure. In order to justify the internal trade and the special treatments between the two under the WTO regime, the FTA between the two Koreas could be a key step to push forward. The FTA between the South and North, in long-term, could vitalize the mutual exchanges, yet in short-term, could also motivate the changes in North Korean economic system and make the existing privilege legitimate. On the same token, the special provisions regarding the rules of origin of the products manufactured in Gaesung Industrial Complex in the recent FTAs of South Korea still need some revisions and improvements. It is significant to further negotiate to raise the rate of non-originating content, or recognize the origin based upon the principal manufacturer or the importance of processing. When the Agreement restricts the types of items, it is required to readjust and upgrade the types, reflecting the latest structure of production in Gaesung Industrial Complex. 남북한 간 교역은 수많은 정치외교적인 난제에도 불구하고 한반도의 미래를 위해 필수적으로 확대해가야 할 부분이며, 실제로 우리 정부는 개성공단 등을 통해 지속적으로 경제협력 관계를 심화해왔다. 그러나 세계무역기구체제를 통해 국제통상규범이 강화되면서 남북한간의 교역이 우리 경제의 내부 문제로만 간주될 수 없는 상황이며, 한국뿐만 아니라 남북한의 대외교역에 중요한 쟁점들을 제기하고 있다. 그러한 남북한교역을 WTO체제에서 제도적으로 보호하기 위해서 우선적으로 추진되어야 하는 사안은 남북한 FTA 추진이다. 남북한 FTA는 장기적으로 남북한 교류를 활성화하는 제도적 틀을 구축하는 기능도 있으나, 단기적으로는 점진적으로 확대되는 남북한교역을 WTO협정상 비차별원칙 의무로부터 보호하고 북한의 경제체제 정비를 위한 중요한 계기가 될 것으로 판단된다. 또한 최근 FTA를 통해 구축해 둔 개성공단의 원산지특례조항도 개선의 여지가 있는데, 개성공단 투입재 비율을 제고하거나 생산 주체, 또는 공정의 중요도 등으로 역외가공 원산지를 인정하는 방식, 그리고 품목 군을 제한하는 경우에도 개성공단의 생산구조를 반영하여 필요한 경우 양허품목을 재조정하는 방식이 검토될 수 있다.

대중국 상계조치상의 보조금 분석과 통상법 쟁점 연구

안덕근(AHN DUKGEUN),유지영(Ji Yeong Yoo),김민정(Minjung Kim) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2015 통상법률 Vol.- No.123

As Chinese central and local governments provide numerous subsidies under the name of state capitalism, the United States, Canada, and EU are actively enforcing countervailing measures in order to cope with ever increasing Chinese exports and trade surplus. By recently concluding an FTA with China, Korea is also under strong pressure to prepare itself for potential enforcement of countervailing measures against China, in order to prevent damage on domestic industry. This study analyzes the legal basis and unique characteristics of China's subsidy measures that have been subjected to countervailing measures by WTO major trading countries. The paper sorted Chinese subsidies into four categories: 1) provision of goods by SOEs, 2) policy lending by SOBs, 3) tax benefits, and 4) grants. WTO cases, United States - Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China (DS379) and United States - Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China (DS437), are scrutinized for legal analysis. Eventually the paper lays out major concerns and implications for Korea's potential utilization of countervailing measures against China. Because the transitional economic system of China is the major source of ongoing trade conflict, disputes based on such extensive list of Chinese subsidy measures will only expand in the near future. Moreover, the WTO Panel and AB rulings also largely acknowledge the investigation decisions of the importing countries. Therefore, despite the political pressure, enforcement of a reasonable level of countervailing duty can be under consideration for Korea as well. Korea should equip itself with competitive investigation and enforcement capacity in order to counter, if needed, such broad and numerous Chinese subsidy measures.

중국 환율정책에 대한 법적 대응조치와 WTO 합치성 분석

안덕근(AHN DUKGEUN),김민정(Minjung Kim) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2012 통상법률 Vol.- No.106

The exchange rate misalignment and its potential cause to bilateral trade imbalance is a recurrent and critical issue for the modern international trade regime. The political and trade conflict between US and China in recent years is a good example and the overblown threat posed by the US Congress to correct its ever-increasing trade deficit as an alleged consequence of undervalued Chinese currency suggests limited remedial mechanism in current international economic system. From the legal and regulatory perspectives, this paper reviews whether relevant IMF and WTO provisions to a Member country's exchange rate policy can effectively address the legal issues of recent US-China currency dispute: namely, legality of exchange rate policy under the GATT XV, legality under the subsidy rules, feasibility of non-violation complaints and effective redress under the IMF regime. The IMF seems to have a direct jurisdiction over the exchange rate policy but its fundamental lack of effective enforcement mechanism may prevent countries from seeking a direct and effective redress under the IMF system. On the contrary, WTO has a better enforcemenet mechanism than the IMF system but its rules are not devised to directly and effectively deal with the trade consequences of exchange rate policy.

[WTO 분쟁해결제도 Asia Forum] WTO 분쟁해결제도 아시아포럼 Session 1

안덕근(사회자),조성준,Julia Qin 산업통상자원부 2021 통상법무정책 Vol.- No.2

WTO 분쟁해결제도에서의 교차보복

안덕근(AHN DUKGEUN),이효영 법무부 국제법무정책과 2010 통상법률 Vol.- No.92

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system authorizes cross-retaliation under which the impact of disputed issues can extend not only to the pertaining industry or Agreement but, if necessary, to other covered Agreements as well. Such is one of the key features of the WTO dispute settlement system, comparable to the GATT system under which retaliation was limited only to goods trade. Furthermore, under the current WTO system, winning parties are indeed engaging in trade retaliatory measures against responding parties, while the number of cases where cross-retaliation has been authorized is on the rise. The WTO provision regulating cross retaliation is DSU Article 22. According to Article 22.3 of the DSU, which provides for the general principles and procedures on the implementation of compensation and suspension of concessions, while complaining parties should first seek to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector(s) as that in which a violation has been found, if deemed not practicable or effective to suspend concessions with respect to the same sector(s), the party can seek retaliation under other covered agreements ('cross-sector retaliation'). In addition to that, if the party considers that the “circumstances are serious enough”, it may seek retaliation under another covered agreement (‘cross-agreement retaliation’). One of the most striking legal problems with regard to cross-retaliation concerns is the suspension of concessions under the TRIPS Agreement. With the authorization of cross-agreement retaliation, WTO members are now practically able to suspend their commitments against reneging countries within the range of authorized suspensions on goods, services trade and intellectual property protection. As a result, since the TRIPS Agreement provides for the rights of intellectual property, unlike the GATT or GATS which covers market access concessions, the legal impact of retaliation under the TRIPS Agreement can turn out quite differently. Furthermore, retaliation under the TRIPS Agreement may raise issues with regard to the direct impairment of IPR, which under normal circumstances need be preserved, economic losses to third parties, and the difficulty of calculating the appropriate level of suspensions regarding intellectual property. Up to now, there have been three cases in which cross-retaliation has been authorized: EC-Bananas III, U.S.-Gambling Services and U.S.-Upland Cotton. With regard to major legal issues, it seems that the series of arbitration panels have been able to develop more elaborate legalistic approaches, while on the other hand, there has been disagreeing positions among arbitration panels on the same issues. Such intricacies are bound to complicate future arbitration rulings, and will become subject to academic discussions regarding the guidelines and directions for the proper interpretation approaches since arbitration decisions cannot be appealed under the current dispute settlement system.

농산물 무역구제 분쟁의 문제점 고찰 : 미국-캐나다간 연목(Softwood Lumber) 분쟁을 중심으로

안덕근,신원규 법무부 2012 통상법률 Vol.- No.104

본 연구에서는 GATT/WTO체제에서 농산물 관련 통상분쟁으로 최대의 논란을 야기했던 사건 중 하나인 미국과 캐나다간의 연목분쟁을 그 기원인 캐나다-미국 FTA(CUSFTA)의 분쟁부터 종합적으로 검토함으로써 무역구제조치 관련 분쟁의 현실과 문제점을 분석한다. 국제통상법 분야의 연구에 있어 이 사건을 주목해야 하는 이유는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 본 사건은 WTO체제의 핵심 회원국인 미국과 캐나다간에 농산물의 수출입을 두고 분쟁과 마찰이 지속적으로 이루어진 사건으로 통상정책은 물론이고 정치경제 및 제도적 환경의 변화에 따른 미국의 무역구제제도에 관한 일반적인 입장과 운용방식을 잘 보여주는 사례이다. 그러므로 이러한 분쟁에 대한 분석은 향후 한미 FTA 분쟁해결제도 운영 및 이행과 관련하여 중요한 시사점을 제공한다. 둘째, 본 사건의 판결분석을 통해 FTA 분쟁해결제도와 GATT/WTO 분쟁해결제도 운영에서의 법적 해석의 변천과 발전을 살펴볼 수 있다. 셋째, 본 사건은 FTA분쟁해결제도와 WTO분쟁해결제도간의 상호작용에 대한 실질적인 사례를 제시함으로써 양자통상체제와 다자통상체제의 상충과 조화에 관한 중요한 시사점을 제공해 준다. 본 연구에서 분석한 농산물분야의 무역구제 관련 통상분쟁의 역사와 내용이 향후 국내 농산물시장 보호와 육성을 위한 거시적인 정책의 밑거름으로 활용되기를 바란다. This study reviews comprehensively the lumber disputes between the United States and Canada raised in free trade agreements such as CUSFTA and NAFTA as well as multilateral trade forums such as GATT and WTO. The purpose of analyzing the whole lumber disputes is as follows. Firstly, as one of the longest and most contentious disputes between the major WTO members, these disputes demonstrate the general trade policies and practices of the United States regarding agricultural disputes. Thus it will provide significant implications on mechanism and implementation of the Korea-US FTA dispute settlement. Secondly, throughout the series of analyses on this case, we can observe the legal development on interpretations of FTAs and GATT/WTO rules related to trade remedy systems. Lastly, we can understand not only the interactive relationship but also their conflicts and congruencies between the dispute settlement mechanisms in the multilateral and bilateral trading system. By presenting analytical and historical perspectives of trade remedy disputes in agricultural sectors, we hope our analysis in the paper provide a foundation for more serious policy research to enhance industry competitiveness in the future.

WTO 세이프가드協定의 解釋과 適用에 관한 批判的 分析

安德根 법무부 2001 통상법률 Vol.- No.41

[초록 없음]

WTO體制의 紛爭解決制度 : 上訴節次

安德根 법무부 국제법무과 2000 통상법률 Vol.- No.31

[초록없음]