투자자·국가분쟁(ISDS)과 국제조정

김도경(Kim, Dokyung) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2023 통상법률 Vol.- No.161

투자자‧국가분쟁(ISDS) 사건의 국제중재절차에는 오랜 시간과 많은 비용이 소모되는 점, 중재판정의 일관성이 유지되지 않는 점, 판정부의 구성의 적절성 문제 등 여러 가지 문제점이 존재한다. 상설투자법원을 통한 중재절차의 대체는 현실적으로 쉽지 않은 대안이고, 조정절차를 통해서 투자자와 국가간의 투자분쟁을 화해합의로 해결하는 것이 국제중재에 대한 현실적인 보완방안이 될 수 있다. ISDS사건의 약 20%는 합의에 의해서 종결된다는 국제연합무역개발협의회(UNCTAD)의 통계는 조정의 가능성을 보여준다. ISDS사건을 해결하기 위한 준거규칙으로는 세계변호사협회(International Bar Associatin)의 투자자-국가조정규칙(Rule for Investor State Mediation), 국제연합국제상거래법위원회(UNCITRAL)가 채택한 조정규칙(UNCTRAL Mediation Rules), ICSID의 조정규칙(ICSID mediation rule)이 있다. 그리고 양자간 조약으로 조정규칙을 규정하고 있는 경우들도 존재한다(유럽연합과 싱가포르간의 투자보호협정 등). 본 고에서는 양자간 조약에 담긴 조정규칙 중 참조할 만한 내용에 대해서 살펴보았다. 한편, ISDS사건에는 국가의 입장에서 섣불리 조정에 응하기 어려운 여러 가지 어려움이 존재한다. 그러한 어려움에는 국가를 대표하여 조정권한을 행사할 주체의 문제, 예산 확보의 문제, 국가기관간의 의사소통의 문제, 권한 행사의 적정성에 대한 문제, 심리적인 문제, 조정화해합의 불이행시 집행에 대한 문제 등이 있다. 조정 가능성에 대해서는 국제연합국제상거래법위원회 제3실무작업반(UNCITRAL Working Group Ⅲ)이 마련한 투자분쟁 조정 가이드라인 초안(draft UNCITRAL guidelines on investment mediation)의 조정적합성을 분석기준을 참조할 필요가 있다. 또한 우리나라가 겪은 ISDS사건 중 다야니 사건과 같이 국가의 재정지출이 없는 경우 조정을 시도해볼만한 가치가 충분히 있다고 보여 해당 사건에 대해서 구체적으로 검토하였다. 마지막으로 ISDS사건 초기의 냉각기간에 의무적으로 조정을 시도해보도록 하는 의무조정 조항을 양자간 협정의 분쟁해결조항에 포함하는 것을 검토해 볼 필요가 있다. International arbitration procedures for investor-state dispute (ISDS) cases take a long time and consume a lot of money. Still, problems exist, such as inconsistent arbitral awards being maintained and criticism about whether the tribunals composition is appropriate. Replacing the arbitration process through a permanent investment court is a challenging alternative in reality, and resolving investment disputes between investors and the state through mediation procedures can be a realistic supplement to international arbitration. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), approximately 20% of ISDS cases are resolved through settlement agreements shows the possibility of mediation. The governing rules for resolving ISDS cases include the International Bar Associations Rule for Investor-State Mediation, the UNCITRAL Mediation Rules adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and an ICSID mediation rule. There are also cases where mediation rules are stipulated in bilateral treaties (European Union-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, etc.). In this paper, I looked at the contents worth referring to among the mediation rules contained in the bilateral treaty. Meanwhile, in ISDS cases, several obstacles make it difficult for the state to respond to mediation. Such obstacles include problems with the entity that will exercise mediation authority on behalf of the state, problems securing the budget, problems with communication between state agencies, problems with the appropriateness of exercising authority, psychological problems, problems with execution in case of non-compliance with the mediation and reconciliation agreement, etc. Regarding the possibility of mediation, referring to the analysis criteria for mediation suitability in the draft UNCITRAL guidelines on investment mediation prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Working Group III) is necessary. In addition, among the ISDS incidents that our country has experienced, such as the Dayani incident, it appears worth attempting mediation in cases where there is no national financial expenditure, so we reviewed the incident in detail. Lastly, to increase the possibility of mediation in ISDS cases, it is necessary to include a mandatory mediation clause in the dispute resolution clause of the bilateral agreement that requires mediation to be attempted during the cooling-off period at the beginning of the case.

EU 탈퇴 의사 통고의 철회 관한 유럽연합 사법재판소 Wightman and Others 판결의 함의: EU법에 대한 국제법의 적용 문제를 중심으로

고영노(Ko Young Lo) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2020 통상법률 Vol.- No.146

국제투자협정상 `국내법 부합규정`에의 위반성

김석호 법무부 국제법무정책과 2017 통상법률 Vol.- No.135

국가 안보 위협 논란에 따른 미국의 1962년 무역확장법 232조 수입조치에 대한 통상법적 쟁점

유지영 법무부 국제법무정책과 2017 통상법률 Vol.- No.138

國際倒産法에 관한 연구

石光現(Suk, Kwang-Hyun) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2001 통상법률 Vol.- No.39

국제도산절차의 공조(共調)

오수근(OH SOO GEUN),송희종(Heejong Song) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.88

The opening of multiple insolvency proceedings in more than one country generally may cause difficulties in terms of efficiency and cost. Cooperation and coordination between proceedings is necessary in order to prevent and resolve any conflicts that may arise. The issue was addressed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and accordingly set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency cooperation and coordination as the guiding principle and further laid down examples of forms of cooperation in Article 27. Under this general framework, attention to cross‐border insolvency agreements, as a form of cooperation and coordination, was brought by the Maxwell case in 1991. A Cross‐border Insolvency Agreement is an oral or written agreement intended to facilitate the coordination of cross‐border insolvency proceedings and cooperation between the courts, between the courts and insolvency representatives and between insolvency representatives. In 2005, UNCITRAL first adopted cooperation and coordination in insolvency proceedings as one of its items. In 2009, the Commission was presented with the draft UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation, which was subsequently adopted. The objective of this paper is to introduce the UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation. It shall provide an account of examples of cooperation between courts in past cases. Furthermore, as well as presenting sample clauses this paper will look into various issues with regard to cross‐border insolvency agreements such as the necessity of entering cross‐border insolvency agreements, the right of parties to enter such an agreement, its form and content. The reason why such an agreement is reached is to maximize the benefit of the parties by minimizing conflicts and duplication of proceedings. The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction of the practice guide so that courts or practitioners may utilize it as a stepping stone for coordination and cooperation in cross‐border insolvency proceedings.

도하開發아젠다(DDA) 協商과 우리의 對應 方向

법무부 국제법무정책과 법무부 국제법무정책과 2002 통상법률 Vol.- No.43

北韓의 國際私法

張文哲(Chang, Moon-Chul) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2000 통상법률 Vol.- No.36

WTO 뉴라운드에서 競爭政策 國際規範化에 대한 論議와 韓國에 대한 示唆點

尹美京(Yun, Mi-Kyung) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2000 통상법률 Vol.- No.36

국제상거래상 Frustration이론에 관한 고찰

한낙현(Nakhyun Han),허윤석 법무부 국제법무정책과 2010 통상법률 Vol.- No.91

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the doctrine of frustration in international commercial contracts with English law. It is generally acknowledged that the principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning that contracts should prima facie be enforced according to their terms, may have to be qualified by exemption such as force majeure, frustration, rebus sic stantibus or hardship. Where contracting parties elect to incorporate into their contract a force majeure clause they can make provision, not only for what constitutes a force majeure event, but also for the consequences of such an event. For example, provision can be made for the granting of extensions of time, the suspension or variation of the contract or even the termination of the contract. The variety of such clauses and their flexibility are such that the consequences of the occurrence of a force majeure event must depend primary upon the proper interpretation of the clause at issue, although in certain cases, where the force majeure clause itself does not deal with all eventualities, it may be possible to have resort to common law rules. But in the case of frustration the story is a rather different one; here greater reliance has, historically, been placed upon the general law, both common law and statute, rather than upon contractual terms negotiated by the parties. For example, a contract which is discharged on the ground of frustration is brought to an end automatically by the operation of a rule of law, irrespective of the whishes of the parties.