경제스파이(Economic Espionage)로부터 영업비밀(Trade Secret)의 법적보호 : 국제법 및 미국법적 제도의 검토를 통한 한국과 국제사회의 대응방향 모색 Seeking a Better Policy for Korea and International Community through the Analysis of the International and the United States Legal System

류병운 한국외국어대학교 외국학종합연구센터 법학연구소 2004 외법논집 Vol.17 No.-

The value of trade secret is depended on its amount of secrecy: once trade secret is disclosed, it loses everything. Thus, trade secret is very fragile intangible asset. The protection of trade secrets, which makes the owner not be subject to unfair competition, promotes investment in research and development, and the exploitation of commercially valuable information. Recently, the number of economic espionage cases increases rapidly. Especially, trade secrets concerning high technology are main targets of international economic espionage. In relation to trade secret, the development of IT technology brings two effects. One is that economic espionage activities supported by the IT technology increase the possibility of misappropriation of trade secret. The other is that, in the share of corporation property, the weight of intangible asset like intellectual property including trade secret is increasing more and more. Nowadays, the more intangible asset a company has the more competitiveness it has. Thus, these two effects show the necessity and significance of trade secret security. To protect trade secret, a corporation should take every precaution against economic espionage. Such endeavor of a corporation, however, would show the limits if it were not supported by international and domestic legal and systematic support. In order to pack such screwed and intellectual crime, it needs international and domestic legal and systematic measures. Based on the thought, the article defines trade secret which cannot be sufficiently protected by intellectual property rights system and analyzes the international and the United State legal system including various cases. The analysis would give some implications and empirical disciplines in search of future policy measures of Korea and international community. Then, the article suggests some probable measures, such as induction of sting operation to look out economic espionage, adoption of the system to preserve confidentiality in the civil and criminal procedure concerning economic espionage or misappropriation of trade secret, lessening of the requirements for self-help against economic espionage or misappropriation of trade secret, acceptance of the inevitable disclose doctrine for the injunctive relief, promotion of the international harmonized rules for protection of trade secret, and etc.

諒解覺書(MOU)의 法的 性格 : 비즈니스계약 중심으로

류병운 홍익대학교 2007 홍익법학 Vol.8 No.1

사법적(私法的) 의미의 양해각서는 계약의 최종적 체결 전까지의 합의의 골격 등을 포함하는 문서로서 그 비구속적 · 비형식성의 장점을 활용하겨, 국가 대 국가뿐 아니라 국가기관 사이,국가 · 국가기관 · 지방자치단체와 기업 사이, 일반 비즈니스 주체들 사이의 사법적 거래에서도 다양한 방식의 문서의 형태로 사용되고 있다. 일반 비즈니스 주체들 즉 기업들 사이에서 작성되는 양해각서는 주로 정식계약을 체결하기에 앞서, 쌍방의 의견을 미리 조율하고 확인히”는 상징적 차원에서 이루어지는 것으로,역시 법적 구속력은 없으나 위반했을 경우에는 도의적 책임과 그 기업에 대한 부정적 평판을 감수해야 한다. 특히 국제 비즈니스 계약에 관하여 양해각서가 매우 빈번하게 사용되고 있다. 국제거래에서의 계약당사자들 사이에 존재하는 법률과 문화의 차이는 정식계약체결까지의 적응과정이 필요할 수도 있고, 매우 치밀한 계약서의 작성을 위한 준비기간도 필요하다. 이러한 적응과 계약준비의 과정을 규율하는 다양한 법적 문서를 양해각서라고 부른다. 계약체결을 위한 적응과 준비기간이 필요한 국제 비즈니스 계약에서 양해각서를 잘 활용하면 계약당사자들의 명확화,협상시간표의 확정, 향후 계약의 골격 정리, 성실협상 및 비밀유지의 합의 등 효율적인 계약체결의 도구가 될 수 있는 반면,그렇지 못하면 불필요한 합의과정의 반복으로 시간과 비용의 낭비는 물론 혼란을 초래할 수 있다. 현재 양해각서와 관련해서 논란이 되는 것은 '양해각서의 법적 구속력'의 문제이다 특히 많은 미국의 기업들이 양해각서를 계약을 향한 첫 번째 단계로서 의례적으로 작성하는 메모로 생각하는 반면,한국의 경우 많은 기업들이나 지방자치단체들은 양해각서를 마치 계약의 대용수단인 것처럼 활용하고 있고, 그 중 상당수의 경우는 그와 같은 양해각서가 법적 구속력을 갖는 것으로 신뢰하고 있다. 양해각서는 일반적인 의미에서 계약과 구별되는 것으로, 당사자들을 법적으로 구속하지 않는 문서로 보는 것이 사회통념상 타당하다. 일반적으로 양해각서는 구속력이 없는 것이나 예컨대,협상내용의 외부공개 금지 및 협상을 통해서 알게 된 내용에 내용의 공개금지 조항, 계약체결시까지의 신의성실에 입각한 협상, 우선협상대상의 지정을 포함하여 협상의 독점성, 계약체결시한 등에 대한 당사자간의 합의에 대해서는 구속력이 발생한다고 보아야 한다. 양해각서에 계약에 본질적 내용,즉 가격조건, 대금지급조건, 분쟁해결에 관한 사항위험부담 등에 대한 합의가 포함된 경우,그러한 내용에 대해서는 구속력이 발생하지 않는다. 계약이 구속력을 발생하는 최종문서이기 때문이다. 양해각서에 본계약에 포함될 내용인 계약의 본질적 내용을 포함시키고,그 내용에 대해 당사자들이 구속력을 인정하는 경우에는 당사자의 착오 등 혼란을 초래할 수 있으므로 매우 바람직하지 않다. 다만, 그 양해각서에 내용이 곧 계약의 일부로서 뒤에 체결되는 계약과 함께 당사자를 구속한다고 해석할 수밖에 없다. 양해각서의 작성·채택은 계약협상 당사자들은 계약체결 과정에 깊숙하게 들어왔다는 사실적 측면과 당사자들 사이에 계약체결의사에 대한 상호 신뢰가 형성되었다 점에 비추어,양해각서의 작성 이후에는 당사자들은 그 내용에 따라 선의로 성실하게 협상에 임해야 한다고 해석된다. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is largely used in international relations and private business transactions. Particularly in international business transactions, the diverse forms of MOUs, which are often called by various names such as "letter of intent," "heads of terms," or "agreement in principle," are probable instruments to meet the risks contained in the transactions. The MOUs invariably purport to be non-binding, yet many of them contain terms intended to be binding. Moreover, some of the MOUs include important terms of contract with binding clause even though they are pre-contract documents during the course of negotiation for the completion of contract. So, it is not easy to understand and interpret the paradox, namely binding factors on the generally non-binding documents. Customarily, the MOUs are non-binding materials in the comparison of contracts which are legally enforceable agreements. However, the non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements and the agreements of obligation to negotiate in good faith or due diligence in the MOUs should be considered binding clauses. These "binding" terms tend to deal not with the "deal points" but with regulation of the negotiation process. If the MOUs include important terms of contract, such as price, quantity, payment, warranty, dispute resolution, etc., the terms are interpreted as non-binding terms because MOUs are subject to the contracts, namely final documents. However, the terms of contract in the MOUs with binding clauses would be consider the part of contracts binding the parties. After the partied agreed on and conclude the MOUs, they have to negotiate in good faith and due diligence.

외국에 대한 재판관할권과 판결의 집행 : 국가면제(State Immunity)이론의 검토 An Analysis of State Immunity Doctrine

류병운 영산대학교 법률교육연구원 2005 영산법률논총 Vol.2 No.1

In order to receive compensatory damages resulted from a foreign state action (breach of contract or torts), ① if the action is a non-commercial and public action, the state would give up the state immunity concerning adjudication and execution both, and ② if the action is a commercial action, the property of the state should be located in the forum state and there must be a certain nexus between the action and the property. So, to meet the requirements for adjudication and execution a prospective plaintiff should know the standards distinguishing a non-commercial and public action and a commercial action, the standards for waiver of state immunity, and the standards identifying the foreign state property. therefore, 1) the definition of "commercial transaction" in the 1991 ILC Draft, which is the action excepted from state immunity, should be made more elaborately. 2) In 1998 decision (97 Da 39216) regarding the foreign sovereign immunity, the Korean Supreme Court adopted the restricted theory of foreign sovereign immunity, which corresponds with worldwide trends. In the case, the court denied applying the foreign sovereign immunity on the unfair dismissal case. The plaintiff was employed for a position served for the United States Army in Korea, which might be governmental function, and then he was fired from position. The court, however, should have been more observant. Even though the 1991 ILC Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and Their property provide that in relation to a contract of employment between a state and an individual, the state cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction of another court (the article 11, Paragraph 1), it is the exception when the individual has been recruited to perform certain governmental functions (the article 11, Paragraph 2, (a)). 3) In case, a state's tortuous action apparently violates international law, the immunity for the action should be denied. 4) the 1991 ILC Draft should be effected as soon as possible with some elaboration such as considering the application of the state sponsored terrorism exception to state immunity, the "Flatow Amenedment," which allowed punitive damages in actions brought under the terrorism exception in U.S., the abolishment requirements for exeption such as a certain nexus between the state action and the property, and the standards for application of state immunity, as Pinochet case, if a state head(including former state head) violates international law. 5) To make more distinctive standards for Korean judicial system, the enactment of Korean Foreign state Immunity Act is necessary.

기후변화와 자유무역 – EU의 CBAM을 중심으로 –

류병운 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2024 홍익법학 Vol.25 No.1

From October 1, 2023, the EU began implementing CBAM. In a situation where the climate change crisis is accelerating, CBAM is an additional policy to achieve the European Green Deal goals along with the EU's ETS. The purpose of CBAM is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by imposing a carbon tax on products imported into the EU, and to prevent 'carbon leakage', which causes companies within the EU to shift production to countries with less stringent carbon emissions standards, increasing global carbon emissions. However, unlike ETS, which is a free contract method of trading carbon in the market, CBAM is a more restrictive measures for international trade through mandatory import tariffs. The EU CBAM may violate Article I of GATT due to the possibility of differential treatment of imported goods according to the carbon pricing system of their country of origin and the fact that it is designed in a way that the industries covered by the CBAM have a greater impact on the exports of certain countries. The increase in additional financial costs due to the purchase of CBAM certificates is a violation of the existing EU concession obligations under GATT Article II, and the change in the tariff concession schedule that increases tariff rates is also judged to be in conflict with the principle of trade liberalization. The cost of the obligation to purchase and submit a CBAM certificate imposed by the EU is a discriminatory financial burden on the importer, and the importer's obligation to submit a CBAM report and certification materials and apply for CBAM declarant approval are related to laws and regulations and their application. This may constitutes violation against GATT Article III. Of course, such violations can be justified under GATT Article XX. Regarding the justification requirement, the satisfaction of the necessity requirement is questionable in that ‘less restrictive’ alternatives, i.e. more market-friendly measures, can be considered rather than mandating the purchase and submission of CBAM certificates. Suspicions still remain that the EU is imposing disguised protectionist trade regulations for industries covered by CBAM. The EU did not choose to directly implement more intensive carbon emission reduction policies within the EU or to strengthen international cooperation within the existing UNFCCC system. Rather, the EU unilaterally introduced CBAM under the justification of using the purchasing power of the huge EU market as a weapon and promoting the reduction of carbon emissions in countries outside the region that export carbon-intensive products to the EU. However, in order to harmonize the CBAM of the WTO and the EU, it is necessary to institutionalize CBAM within a multilateral, free trade framework through negotiations and revision of the agreement in the WTO.

한국 민사재판권의 한계에 대한 국제법적 검토

류병운 한국외국어대학교 외국학종합연구센터 법학연구소 2004 외법논집 Vol.16 No.-

Korean courts have civil jurisdiction, which is based on the sovereignty of Korea and its territorial rights, over all persons and legal persons within the territory of Korea except for the cases in which the diplomatic privileges and immunity and the foreign sovereign immunity are applied. In real ordinary life and business transactions, however, it is not easy to tell a part the exceptions from general cases. So, it is meaningful to explore the scope and the criteria of exemptions enclosed in international law. Based on the thoughts, the article deals the diplomatic privileges and immunity, the foreign sovereign immunity, the rules about international organization, the status of foreign armed forces, etc. Also, the article analyzes many cases and Korean courts attitude concerning these issues. For example, in 1992, Seoul Civil Trial Court gave an erroneous decision (92 KaHap 33089). In the decision, the Court accepted the plaintiffs claim of eviction on a building used as the embassy by the Republic of Zaire, then. The decision is not matched with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation. As another example, in 1998 decision (97 Da 39216) regarding the foreign sovereign immunity, the Korean Supreme Court adopted the restricted theory of foreign sovereign immunity, which corresponds with worldwide trends. In the case, the court denied applying the foreign sovereign immunity on the unfair dismissal case. The plaintiff was employed for a position served for the United States Army in Korea, which might be governmental function, and then he was fired from the position. The court, however, should have been more observant. Even though the 1991 ILC Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and Their Property provides that in relation to a contract of employment between a state and an individual, the state cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction of another court (the article 11, Paragraph 1), it is the exception when the individual has been recruited to perform certain governmental functions (the article 11, Paragraph 2, (a)). Through such study and analysis, the article could show the circumference of Korean courts civil jurisdiction.

Problems of the Rules of Origin in the EU and the NAFTA : the Need to Expedite Completion of WTO Work for Harmonization

柳炳云 법무부 2004 통상법률 Vol.- No.57

Today, determining "where a product comes from" is very difficult when raw materials and parts cross the globe to become components of goods that may become in turn the components of other goods that are manufactured in many plants in several different countries. Moreover, the different rules of origin around the world are really varied and complicated. Many of the major trading countries have more than one set of preferential rules, as well as more than one set of non-preferential rules. Present various and complicated rules of origin may provoke lots of unnecessary trade controversies and obstacles to international trade, as well as increased transaction costs. To date, the WTO has not implemented a uniform regime for the harmonized rules of origin, which was scheduled to be accomplished within three years after the initiation of the harmonization work program. Thus far, countries have used different rules with different criteria to determine the origin of certain goods. Accordingly, they have sometimes experienced severe incompatibility problems as well as the use of the rules as disguised barriers to international trade. The work program for the harmonized rules of origin was to be initiated as soon as the completion of the Uruguay Round. The work would be conducted by a Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) in the WTO and a technical committee (TCRO) under the auspices of the Customs Cooperation Council in Brussels According to the schedule, the harmonized rules should have been completed by July 1998. While, some substantial progress has been achieved in the CRO and the TCRO, the work program for the harmonization could not be finalized within the estimated deadline. In December 2000, the General Council Special Session agreed to set, as the new deadline for the completion of the remained work, the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference at least by the end of 2001. The WTO, however, did not meet this deadline, even though it has by now largely completed the work with the exception of a few outstanding issues. The official reason for continued delay by the WTO was that the work was turned out to be more complicated than anticipated and several time extensions were required. However a look into the proceedings reveals a strong incentive for the established regional blocs, such as the EU and NAFTA, not to agree with the harmonized rules of origin. The established regional blocs enjoin advantages under the present regime of various and independent rules of origin. Sometimes, the use of rules of origin has a protectionist effect benefiting domestic industries. Thus although rules of origin may not be explicitly used for protectionist purposes, there is unavoidably a restrictive effect which discourages external source, and to a degree, free trade. Until the completion of the harmonization program, WTO members are required to ensure that their rules of origin are transparent that they do not have restricted, distorted or disruptive effects on international trade. Rules of origin must also be administered in a consistent and reasonable manner, and based on a positive standard. It is anticipated that rules of origin clearly define what criteria establish origin rather than what do not In reality, however, these guidelines are too weak to check the abuse of rules of origin as disguised protectionist measures. Because of the incentives not to agree to the harmonized rules of origin, the EU and the NAFTA member counties, especially the United States, are not actively pursuing completion of the work program for the harmonization. Even though the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin seeks to have its members comply with neutrality and transparency principles in implementing their rules of origin, rules of origin (including changing criteria in the rules) could be used for raising barriers to international trade, especially for the policies of major regional blocs, such as the EU and NAFTA. The examples are 1) lack of transparency in implement of the rules; 2) discretionary interpretation of the criteria in the rules; 3) complexity of the rules; 4) sudden and significant change of a criteria in the rules; 5) presumption of circumvention 6) denial of standing to challenge decisions regarding origin and 7) restrictions and the increase of restrictions on third country inputs. The restrictive effects of rules of origin could be drastically reduced by the establishment of a world-wide harmonized system governing rules of origin. Therefore, rapid completion of the WTO Work for Harmonization is very important Harmonization will further the ultimate objectives of the WTO and neutralize the trade disadvantages of nations which are not members of significant RTAs.

국제가격과DDA협상을고려한쌀조기관세화방안

류병운 홍익대학교 2010 홍익법학 Vol.11 No.2

International community expect that Korea, as the host country of 2010 G-20 Summit, would do leading role to make a breakthrough the stand still DDA of WTO. So, Korea is hard to argue continuously that the Korean rice should treated as an exception of 'tariffication without exception.' Domestically, however, upon the very partial opening of Korean rice market, Korean farmers resisted seriously against the government. Upon the situation that the raising of international rice price and the growing obligatory import amount of Korea (MMA), if Korea commits the tariffication of the rice rather than continuous suspending the triffication, it would reduce the obligatory import amount of rice. However the international rice price began to stabilize downward from the peak in 2008. If Korea commits the tariffication, the rate of tariff would be about 360%. So the high rate could act as a barrier for domestic market. However if DDA negotiation is completed, Korea should levy low rate tariff on the established MMA amount and the afterward TQR amount DDA. It means that the tariff barrier effect would be reduced. If the Korean rice is classified as one of the special products of developing countries, which does not increase any TRQ amount or if DDA negotiation result cannot be applied by 2013, immediate tariffication would be favorable to Korea. In case of tariffication the MMA amount fixed at the time of tariffication, the later tariffication would be the great amount of MMA. Also MMA amount should be imported whereas TQR is not mandatory. After 2014, Korea will be hard to keep suspending tariffication. Upon these situations, tariffication would be favorable to Korea in the long term. In case of collapse international rice price and rapidly increasing import amount, Korea government would apply the SSG of Agricultural Agreement or SSM for developing countries which is negotiating in DDA. 국제적으로 현재 교착상태인 도하개발어젠다(Doha Development Agenda: DDA) 10년 협상 타결의 전기가 2010년 11월 서울 G-20 정상회의에서 마련되도록 의장국인 한국의 리더쉽이 기대되는 상황에서 국내 쌀 시장에 대하여만 계속 '예외 없는 관세화'의 예외를 주장하기 어려운 입장이다. 그러나 국내적으로 WTO출범과 출범 이후의 매우 부분적 국내쌀 시장 개방에도 농민들의 저항이 만만하지 않았다. 관세화 유예 시 점증하는 ‘최소시장접근(MMA)’물량을 고려할 때 국제 쌀값의 상승은 쌀 관세화를 채택하면 오히려 수입 물량이 줄어들 가능성이 커졌다. 다만 국제쌀 가격이 2008년을 고비로 하향 안정세로 돌아선 지금 좀더 면밀한 분석이 필요한 상황이다. 만일 향후 관세화로 전환할 경우에는 쌀의 ‘관세상당치’를 보다 크게 인정받도록 협상력을 모아야 한다. 먼저 관세화를 취한 일본과 대만의 경우를 고려할 때 쌀 수입에 대해서 한국은 360%내외의 고율의 관세를 적용할 수 있어 관세 장벽을 통한 국내시장 보호효과가 상당하다고 할 수 있다. 다만 한국이 수입쌀에 대하여 고율의 관세를 적용할 수 있는 경우는 5%의 낮은 관세가 부과되는 MMA물량을 초과하는 수입량에 대해서만 가능한, DDA협상 타결 이전의 시나리오이다. DDA 협상이 타결되면 MMA물량과 TQR물량에 대해서는 역시 낮은 관세를 부과할 수 밖에 없어 관세 장벽 효과는 상당히 희석될 수 밖에 없다. 향후 1년 내에 DDA협상의 타결 전망이 희박하여 2013년까지 그 협상결과가 적용되기 어렵거나, DDA협상 결과 쌀이 개도국의 특별품목으로 분류되어 관세의 감축과 TRQ 증량이 없게 되는 경우에는 쌀의 관세화가 한국에게 유리하다. 또한 관세화로 전환 시 MMA물량은 당시 수준으로 유지된다는 점에서 더 늦게 전환할수록 더 많은 MMA물량을 부담한다는 점, MMA물량은 의무적으로 수입하여 하나, TRQ물량은 그 할당량에 수입량이 미치지 못하더라도 추가 수입의 의무는 아니라는 점, 2005년 주요 대한 쌀 수출국과의 협상에서 언급된 바 없는 2014년 이후에는 관세화 유예조치가 지속되기 어렵다는 것을 고려하면 장기적인 관점에서는 관세화의 채택이 한국에게 유리하다고 할 수 있다. 다만 국제 쌀 가격의 폭락의 경우 수입이 급증할 위험성을 있는데 이러한 급격한 수입증가에 대해서는 농산물 SSG와 DDA에서 논의 중인 개도국의 SSM로 대처할 수 있을 것이다.

중국의 정책을 고려한 한국의 동아시아 경제통합 추진 방향

류병운 홍익대학교 2009 홍익법학 Vol.10 No.1

The purpose of this article is to propose to the Korean government a reasonable policy regarding East Asia economic integration through understanding the China’s policies, particularly the China’s FTA strategy. The Northeast Asia, primarily Korea, China, and Japan, could not have integrated as a comprehensive Regional Trade Arrangement (RTA), such as EU and NAFTA, even though Northeast Asia region is already reorganized one of three major parts in worldwide economy. The Northeast Asian economic integration is urgently crucial because: 1) the intra-trade ratio of EU and NAFTA is respectively more than 65% and 45% whereas the intra-trade ratio among Korea, China, and Japan is no more than 23%, which implies the trade diversion effect derived from the established RTA; 2)Besides advantage and efficiency in international trade aspects, even in socio- political aspects, the Northeast Asian countries would strengthen their positions in international organizations and societies as a result of integrating into a RTA. For example, the EU deals effectively with the United States by using a single iscussion channel in matters like trade and disputes settlement, while Korea, Japan and China tackle the problems individually and often ineffectively. The main characteristics of China’s FTA driving policies center on the neighbor countries and on the countries having abundant energy and natural resources. As an adjacent country to China, Korea is a major prospective FTA partner of China. However, Korea, which lacks of energy and natural resources, is eager to get hold of the resources. I means that Korea and China are competitive in securing the resources. So, it needs to build cooperative relationship between Korea and China under the common purpose of securing energy and natural resources, especially in the negotiation of the East Asia RTA and the Korea-China FTA. China’s standpoints for East Asia economic integration could be summarized that 1) AEAN+3(Korea, China, Japan) is the ideal frame of East Asia RTA and that 2) China takes aggressive approach concerning Northeast Asia RTA. Compared to China, Korea has weaker influence in ASEAN countries. Also, compared to the some common cultural background with China and Japan, with ASEAN countries, Korea has not any remarkable culture commonness. Accordingly, it is recommended that the FTA with ASEAN and further the FTA with East Asia should be the lower level of Free Trade Area, however higher level integration of Northeast Asia RTA, such as Customs Union, should be propelled. Reflecting the geographical factors and the level of economic development, the possible East Asia RTA should be basically made by the way that Korea, China and Japan serve as core countries in the integration. The East Asia regional integration should be collective policy arrangement to solve the global task, such as climate change as well as typical RTA. Considering the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 insufficient supply of foreign currency in Korea with the remarkable cost of foreign currency holding cost in China and Japan, it is necessary to build regional international financial system, such as Asian Monetary Fund (AMF), to solve regional financial problems more efficiently and rapidly. 이 논문은 중국의 FTA정책 및 동아시아 경제통합에 대한 입장을 파악하여 우리의 동아시아 경제통합에 대한 정책방향에 대한 시사점을 얻는데 그 목적이 있다. 세계 경제가 이미 유럽경제권, 미주경제권 그리고 동북아경제권의 3대 권역으로 재편되고 있음에도 불구하고 동북아는 여하한 지역무역협정(Regional Trade Agreement: RTA)등의 경제통합체가 없는 유일한 지역이다. EU나 NAFTA의 각각 65%, 45%에 이르는 역내교역비중과 현재 23%에 불과한 한.중.일 역내 교역비중에서 드러나는 무역전환효과를 고려할 때 동북아 지역 경제 통합의 부재로 EU나 미국등과 비교하져 WTO등 세계무대에서의 협상이나 분쟁해결과정에서 효율적 능동적으로 대처하지 못하였고 또한 EU나 미국이 제기하는 각종 통상마찰의 압력에 노출되어 있는 상황을 고려할 때 동북아 또는 동아시아 경제통합이 절실한 상황이다. 중국의 FTA추진 전략은 인적한 국가들을 중심으로 추진하고 에너지와 원자재 자원을 풍족하게 보유한 국가들에 초점을 맞추어져 있다. 한국은 중국의 인접국가로서 중국의 우선적 FTA체결 대상국이다. 자원과 에너지 확보는 한국의 국가과제이기도 하다. 따라서 중국의 향후 FTA체결이나 동아시아 경제총합 추진에서 자원과 에너지 확보를 공동의 목표로 하여 상호 협력관계를 구축하는 것이 중요하다. 중국의 동아시아 경제통합에 대한 입장은 크게 ASEAN+3(한국, 중국, 일본)를 동아시아 지역경제통합의 이상적인 형태로 보며, 동북아 경제통합에 적극적이라는 점이다. 한국은 ASEAN에서 중국보다 영향력이 약하고 한국에게 ASEAN국가들은 중국과 일본에 비해 문화적 공통성도 약하다. 따라서 ASEAN과 FTA, 나아가 동아시아 FTA는 낮은 단계의 자유무역지대 수준으로 하고, 동아시아 경제통합에 중첩하여 보다 높은 단계의 동북아 경제통합을 추진하는 것이 바람직하다고 생각된다. 지리적 요소와 경제적 비중과 발전정도를 고려한다면 향후 동아시아 통합은 기본적으로 한반도를 중심으로 한국과 중국, 일본이 통합의 구심점이 되는 방식으로 이루어지는 것이 바람직하다. 글로벌 과제를 지역 국가들이 함께 해결하는 방향으로 추진되어야 하고 1997년 아시아 외환위기나 2008년 미국발 금융경색에 따른 한국의 달러공급 부족 들 동아시아 국제 금융 문제에 신속하고 효율적으로 대응하기 위한 아시아통화기금(AMF)과 같은 지역 국제금융기관의 설립도 시급하다.

환경에 대한 WTO 규정 개선

류병운 홍익대학교 2008 홍익법학 Vol.9 No.1

The international environmental issues, which increase international friction and are related to acid rain, greenhouse gases, and ozone depletion, have inevitably become global. A state alone no longer solves these issues effectively when the problems are not centered within the state's borders. Before the WTO, in the mere trade liberalization perspective, the GATT had very strictly interpreted the article XX (b) and (g) of GATT 1947. With the Preamble to Agreement Establishing the WTO which suggests "the optimal use of the world's resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of development," environment issues become more and more one of the customary trade issues. Even though the main goal of WTO is trade liberalization, the article XX of GATT with the Preamble of Agreement Establishing the WTO provides more elasticity for the WTO member States to take their trade restrictive policy measures for environmental protection under particular conditions. The present WTO's provisions, however, are not delicate and sufficient enough to acquire the double-win: “a win for the environment and a win for trade.”To make the WTO, not only for the world economy through trade liberalization, but also for the global environment, we need the better provisions of WTO's. With the increased environmental concerns, the linkage between trade and the environment need to be strengthened. As the harmonization of following two principles in the “Shrimp/Turtle case I & II” cases: 1) “unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided” and 2) environmental protection measures should address trans boundary or global environmental problems, there is no longer any boundary between international trade law and international environmental law. The chapeau of GATT art. XX strictly prohibits "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade. The burden of proof for the chapeau is assigned to the offender State, namely State relying on TREMs. The Preamble to Agreement Establishing the WTO could be considered as the WTO rule on Trade and Environment. The 'necessary' standards of the article XX(b) of GATT need to include: ① the relative importance of the common interests or value pursued by the TREMs, ② the contribution made by the TREMs to the realization of the ends pursued by measures, and ③ the restrictive impact of the TREMs on international trade. The term “exhaustible natural resources” in the article XX (g) of GATT 1994 includes living and non-living resources. The “exhaustible natural resources” could include certain resources beyond the jurisdiction of the state imposing the trade restrictive measures if there is a “sufficient nexus” with such resources within the jurisdiction. It is desirable that the comparative efficiency should be considered among the various TREMs for conservation. In global trade liberalization context, TBT or SPS regulations should be based on the internationally determined standards rather than local discretion. The green subsidy provision of the SCM Agreement should be revived. By the more detail regulation of the Agreement on Agriculture, the reduction of agriculture subsides should be managed. A policy exception for conservation measures need to be included to the general exception provision in the GATS. To harmonize the environmental provisions in the RTAs with that of the WTO, the WTO needs to serve new standards as well as GATT art. XXIV and the Understanding. 오늘날 산성비, 온실 가스와 오존층의 파괴 등 국제환경 문제는 국제적 마 찰을 증가시키면서 필연적으로 세계적 문제가 되어가고 있다. 환경 문제가 한 국가의 국경 내에 집중되어 있지 않은 한 그 국가가 홀로 이러한 문제를 효과적으로 해결할 수 없게 되었다. WTO 이전에는 단지 무역 자유화의 관점에서 GATT는 GATT1947 제20조 (b)와 (g)항을 매우 엄격하게 해석하였다. "지속가능한 발전의 목표에 상응하는 세계 자원의 적절한 사용 즉, 환경의 보호 및 보존과 상이한 발전 정도에 따른 개별적인 필요와 이해관계에 부합 하는 형태로 방법을 찾도록” 제안하고 있는 ‘WTO 설립협정’의 전문과 더불 어 환경 문제는 점점 더 통상적인 무역 문제가 되어가고 있다. WTO의 목표 가 무역 자유화임에도 불구하고, ‘WTO 설립협정’의 전문과 더불어 GATT 제 20조는 WTO 회원국들에게 특정 상황에서 환경 보호를 위한 무역 제한 조치 를 취할 수 있도록 보다 유연성을 부여하게 되었다. 그러나 현재의 WTO규정들은 환경과 무역에서 모두를 만족시킬 수 있을 만큼 정교하지도 충분하지도 않다. 무역 자유화를 통한 세계 경제의 발전을 위한 WTO로서만이 아니라 세계 환경을 위한 WTO를 만들기 위해서 우리는 다음에 예시되는 바 보다 효과적인 WTO규정들이 필요하다. 환경적 관심이 늘어감과 함께, 무역과 환경의 연계(linkage)가 강화될 필요가 있다. "Shrimp/Turtle case I & II" cases에서 두 가지 원칙(①수입국의 관할 권 밖에서 일어난 환경적 도전을 일방적으로 대응해서는 아니된다 ②환경 보 호 방법은 국경을 초월하여 또는 세계적 환경문제로 제기되어야 한다)을 조화시켰던 것 처럼 이제 국제무역법과 국제환경법을 더이상 구별하지않게 되었다. GATT 제20조의 chapeau는 "동일한 조건을 유지하는 나라들 간에 인위적또는 합당하지 않는 차별이나 국제 무역에 위장된 제한"을 엄격하게 금지한다. 이 chapeau이 입증책임은 무역제한적 환경조치(TREMs)를 취하는 국가에 게 있다. ‘WTO 설립협정’의 전문 무역과 환경에 관한 WTO의 법으로 간주될 수 있다. GATT제 20조 (b)항의 '필요성'은 ①TREMs가 추구하는 일반적인 이 익 또는 가치의 상대적 중요성, ② TREMs를 통해 달성하는 목적의 실현 정도, ③ 국제 무역에 대한 TREMs의 규제적 효과 등의 기준들에 의해 판단되어 야 한다. GATT제 20조 (g)항의 "고갈되어가는천연자원"은 생물과 무생물을 포괄하며 "충분한 관련성(sufficient nexus)"존재하는 국가 영토관할권 밖의 자원을 포괄한다. 각국의 기술장벽(TBT)이나 위생(SPS)와 규정과 관련해서 국제적 기준이 국가나 지역의 재량보다 우선시 되야한다. 보조금(SCM)협정의 환경보조금 조항을 부활시켜야 한다. 농업협정에 보조금을 감축시키는 내용이 포함되어야 한다. GATT제 24조와 그에 대한 양해에서 지역무역협정의 환경규정들에 대한 기준들을 포함하여야 한다.

국제비즈니스계약에 적용되는 법

류병운 홍익대학교 2007 홍익법학 Vol.8 No.2

국제비즈니스계약에 적용되는 법을 결정하는 문제는 계약의 적용법과 준거법을 파악하는 문제이다. 국제계약은 일단 물품매매계약과 비(非)물품계약으로 크게 나누어볼 필요가 있다. 물품매매계약의 경우 2005년 3월 1일부터는우리나라에 대해서는 효력을 발생하여 우리나라에 영업소를 둔 당사자가 외국 당사자와 체결하는 물품매매계약에 CISG가 적용될 가능성이 매우 높아졌기 때문이다. 모든 물품계약에 CISG가 적용되는 것은 아니다. CISG 자체가 적용이 배제되는 물품거래를 규정하고 있기 때문이다. 또한 이문제와 관련해서는 "신종 물품”들이 과연 CISG의 적용대상이 되는 물품인가 하는 해석문제가 제기될 것이다. 또한 물품매매 계약과 비물품계약이 서로 혼합된 경우에 CISG의 적용여부를 판단하는 것은 쉽지않다. 당사자들이 명시적으로 CISG의 적용을 배제한 경우와 국제비물품계약에는 당사자가 계약에서 지정하는 법이 그 계약에 적용되는 법이다. 당사자가 계약에서 계약에 적용되는 법을 지정하지 않는 경우 법정지 국제사법에 의하여 계약에 적용되는 법을 결정하게 된다. 즉 특정 국가의 국내법이 당사자 간의 국제비물품계약에 적용되게 된다. 대체로 계약과 "밀접한 관련성”이 있는 법이 적용되게 되는데 계약의 본질적 이행을 담당하는 당사자가 속하는 곳의 법이 계약과 가장 밀접한 관련이 있는 법으로 판단된다. 법정지 국제사법에 의하여도 계약에 적용되는 법을 확정할 수 없는 경우는 국제 상관습법(lex mercatoria)이 적용된다. The article focuses on how to decide the applicable law to international business contracts. Also, the article will summarize the interpretations of contract laws with the various cases related to the issue. International Business Contract is "an legally enforceable agreement" of which the contractors' places of business exist in different countries which includes sales of good, distributorship or agency for overseas sales, franchise contract, license contract, energy sales contract, plant contract, etc. The international contract needs an applicable contract law for the interpretation or supplementation of the meaning of contract clauses. After the 1st of March, 2005, a contractor of sales of goods who has a business place in Korea would be under the high possibility of application of CISG the contract between him/her and his/her foreign contract partner. In other words, a contractor who has a business site in Korea goes into the sales of goods contract with a contractor who has a business site in a foreign country would be applied to CISG if there's no Opt-out agreement concerning the CISG or if the foreign contractor's country doesn't reserve the indirect application of CISG. Of course, CISG doesn't apply to all of the sales of goods contracts. The CISG itself defines some product transactions which are excluded from its application. So, we should decide the applicable law in the Opt-out situation or contracts concerning sales of goods which are excluded from the application of CISG. Non-sales of goods contracts, such as distributorship or agency contract, joint-venture contract, franchise contract, license contract, or plant contract, the proper law would be the law chosen by the parties or decided by the principle of conflicts of law. In the vacancy of the proper or applicable law, lex mercatoria could be applied to the contracts. Sometimes, there are two or more the applicable laws or the proper laws. We should apply the laws in a harmonized way of without any conflict.