한ㆍ미 FTA 정부조달부문 협상결과에 대한 통상정책적 평가

김대식 경희대학교 법학연구소 2008 경희법학 Vol.43 No.2

In 2007, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America concluded a Free Trade Agreement("KORUS FTA"). As resulting in lowering contract thresholds and easing participating requirements, Korean government advertises that the KORUS FTA would give many Korean small business firms good chances for access to U.S. government procurement market. Because the KORUS has an substantial effect on Korean commercial interests in the U.S. procurement market, this article tries to review the Government Procurement Chapter of the KORUS in terms of trade policy considerations. Generally speaking, in KORUS FTA, contract thresholds for central(federal) government procurement have been reduced, but chances for getting access to market for local(state) governments and defense entities have not been improved. And the KORUS has kept on keeps on a preference for small businesses which account for 30~40% in the government market. Specially, Article 17.5, 2 in this agreement provides ".... a procuring entity shall not impose the condition that, in order for a supplier to participate in a procurement or be awarded a contract, the supplier has previously been awarded one or more contracts by a procuring entity of that Party or that the supplier has prior work experience in the territory of that Party". However, U.S. obligates Korean entities to submit suety bonds, which can be issued from U.S. financial corporations with some limitations of domestic requirements. Thus, it would be very difficult for the Korean small construction firms, which do not have prior work experience in the U.S., to participate in tenders of the U.S. government construction contracts. The principle of free trade is reflected in the Government Procurement Chapter of the KORUS by reducing contract thresholds and easing requirements for participation, but the chapter also has something to do with the principle of fair trade. So each party can use technical speculations to promote the conservation of natural resources or protect the environment. In conclusion, the Government Procurement Chapter in KORUS FTA will provide us with a limited chance for getting access to U.S. government market. Korean government needs to solve these problems through Government Procurement Working Group which agreed to establish in this FTA. In 2007, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America concluded a Free Trade Agreement("KORUS FTA"). As resulting in lowering contract thresholds and easing participating requirements, Korean government advertises that the KORUS FTA would give many Korean small business firms good chances for access to U.S. government procurement market. Because the KORUS has an substantial effect on Korean commercial interests in the U.S. procurement market, this article tries to review the Government Procurement Chapter of the KORUS in terms of trade policy considerations. Generally speaking, in KORUS FTA, contract thresholds for central(federal) government procurement have been reduced, but chances for getting access to market for local(state) governments and defense entities have not been improved. And the KORUS has kept on keeps on a preference for small businesses which account for 30~40% in the government market. Specially, Article 17.5, 2 in this agreement provides ".... a procuring entity shall not impose the condition that, in order for a supplier to participate in a procurement or be awarded a contract, the supplier has previously been awarded one or more contracts by a procuring entity of that Party or that the supplier has prior work experience in the territory of that Party". However, U.S. obligates Korean entities to submit suety bonds, which can be issued from U.S. financial corporations with some limitations of domestic requirements. Thus, it would be very difficult for the Korean small construction firms, which do not have prior work experience in the U.S., to participate in tenders of the U.S. government construction contracts. The principle of free trade is reflected in the Government Procurement Chapter of the KORUS by reducing contract thresholds and easing requirements for participation, but the chapter also has something to do with the principle of fair trade. So each party can use technical speculations to promote the conservation of natural resources or protect the environment. In conclusion, the Government Procurement Chapter in KORUS FTA will provide us with a limited chance for getting access to U.S. government market. Korean government needs to solve these problems through Government Procurement Working Group which agreed to establish in this FTA.

한국-미국 FTA 분쟁해결절차에 관한 연구

강준하 법무부 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.89

FTA에서의 분쟁해결절차는 WTO의 분쟁해결절차와 유사하다. 기본적으로 국가대 국가 간 분쟁을 다루는 구조로 되어 있으며, 분쟁발생 시 패널에서 그 해결을 도모한다. 패널의 판정에 따라 패소국은 이행의무를 부담하고, 불이행시 혜택의 정지 등 승소국에게 보복조치를 허용한다. 우리나라가 체결한 기존의 FTA에서도 이와 같은 구조로 분쟁해결절차를 규정하고 있다. 그러나 FTA는 당사국간 관심이 있는 교역과 관련된 모든 분야, 모든 사안에 대하여 협상을 진행할 수 있기 때문에 WTO 규범보다 훨씬 광범위하고 세세한 분야까지 협상의 대상으로 하고 있다. 그 당연한 논리의 귀결로 분쟁도 WTO보다 훨씬 다양한 분야에서 발생할 수 있으며, 일부 분야의 분쟁은 WTO 분쟁해결절차의 관할권에 포함되지 않는 것들도 있을 수 있다. 이에 따라 FTA 분쟁해결절차는 일반 분쟁해결 절차 이외에 특정 분야 또는 사안을 다루는 특별 분쟁해결 절차가 규정되기도 한다. FTA 분쟁해결절차는 패널의 선정과정에 있어서 양 당사국에 재량권을 부여하고 있으며, 대개의 경우 패널절차는 단심으로 끝나고 최종심의 성격을 지니고 있음에 반하여, WTO분쟁해결절차는 패널절차 이외에 2심의 성격을 가진 상소기구를 두고 있어, 패널 판정에 불복하여 상소기구의 판정을 요청할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 한-미 FTA에서 규정하고 있는 분쟁해결절차는 기존 한국이 체결한 FTA에서 규정하고 있는 분쟁해결절차와 유사한 구조를 가지고 있다고 할 수 있다. 원칙적으로 한-미 FTA의 분쟁해결절차는 국가대 국가의 분쟁을 다루는 구조로 되어 있으며, 각 당사국이 선정한 패널위원으로 구성된 패널에서 사안을 심리한다. 다만 한-미 FTA 분쟁해결절차는 몇 가지 점에서 그 차이를 보이고 있는데, 첫째, 투명성을 제고하고 있다는 점 이다. 한-미 FTA 분쟁해결절차는 협의단계에서 일반 대중에게 의견 수렴을 하도록 하고 있으며, 패널 심리절차를 원칙적으로 공개하는 등 투명성을 제고하고 있다. 둘째, 패널에서 사안을 심리하기 전에 제소 당사국과 피소 당사국간 협의 및 공동위원회에서의 논의를 통하여 분쟁해결을 도모하는 단계를 두고 있다. 셋째, 패널판정 불이행시 협정상 혜택의 정지 대신 금전적 평가액의 지불을 허용하고 있다. 넷째, 노동·환경 분야가 분쟁해결절차의 적용대상으로 포함되었고, 자동차에 대한 신속 분쟁해결절차가 규정되었다. 마지막으로 분쟁해결절차에 소요되는 시간이 다른 FTA에 비해 상대적으로 길다. The aim of this paper is to review KORUS FTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Dispute settlement procedures under the FTA is similar to those under the WTO DSU. In principle, only the State can bring the case to the dispute settlement procedures and it is the panel to settle the case. According to the panel determination, complaining Party may retaliate by suspending the benefits. The previous FTAs that Korea has concluded have specified the dispute settlement procedures in the same manner. However, since FTA may accommodate all the relevant issues and sectors that negotiating Parties have interests, the scope and coverage of the FTA is much broader. As a result, FTA may have a special procedures to deal with legal issues arising from particular sectors. The FTA dispute settlement mechanism provides the panel is the final phase without allowing an appeal, whereas the WTO DSU provides the Appellate Body can handle the case after the panel determination. Dispute settlement procedures under the KORUS FTA is basically same as the procedures that Korea's previous FTAs have specified. Some differences, however, can be found in KORUS FTA. The key features of the KORUS FTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism is as follows. First, KORUS FTA enhances transparency in the procedures. For instances, KORUS FTA requires the Parties to seek the views of interested parties and other members of the public. It also stipulates that hearings before the panel must be open to the public. Second, KORUS FTA provides additional means to resolve a dispute. The Parties may resolve the dispute through consultations and Joint Committee before initiating the panel procedures. Third, the Party may pay an annual monetary assessment in case of non-implementation. Fourth, from Korea's position, KORUS FTA is the first FTA covering disputes arising from labor and environmental sectors and having accelerated procedures for the automobile dispute. Finally, KORUS FTA, comparing with other FTAs, provides a longer time-frame for dispute settlements.

한국-미국 FTA 원산지 규정에 관한 연구

강준하 법무부 2008 통상법률 Vol.- No.80

The aim of this paper is to review KORUS FTA Rules of Origin. Although there are some differences in terms of structure and contents, KORUS FTA Rules of Origin is not much different from the other FTA's texts that Korea has already concluded. In terms of structure, several articles, articulated in Customs Procedure chapter of other FTAs, are specified in Rules of Origin chapter: those articles include claims for preferential tariff treatment, record keeping requirements, verification, obligations relating to importations, and obligations relating to exportations. Textile and Apparel chapter is also separately specified. In terms of contents, article relating to remanufactured goods is newly introduced in KORUS FTA Rules of Origin. This article may serve environmental protection purpose by promoting use of recovered parts and materials. This article may also help development of remanufacturing industry in Korea. KORUS FTA Rules of Origin includes general rules such as accumulation, sets of goods, indirect materials, transshipment, de minimis, packaging materials and packing materials. However, Non-qualifying operation rule is reflected in the Product Specific Rules instead of being specified in the Rules of Origin text. For agricultural goods, 'wholly obtained or produced' rule is applied as a basic rule. As to some politically sensitive goods such as rice-related products or sugar-products, restrictive rules are applied, requiring to use domestic materials. For meat products, 'slaughtering' rule is applied. For automotive goods, Korea and the US agreed that importer, exporter, or producer could calculate the regional value contents based on either Build-Down/Build-Up Method or Net Cost Method. Both Parties also agreed that the regional value contents for automotive goods should be more than 35% for Build-Up Method, 55% for Build-Down Method, and 35% for Build-Up Method, respectively. Those requirements, similarly set in other FTAs, are determined to reflect the trend of global sourcing. For textile and apparel goods, Korea and the US agreed to adopt 'yarn-forward rule', allowing exceptions for certain goods. Both sides also agreed to introduce procedures for permitting to use non-Party's materials when fibers·yarns·fabrics are not available in commercial quantities. For Kaesung Industrial Complex, Korea and the US agreed to establish 'Committee on Outward Processing Zones on the Korean Peninsula' in Institutional Provisions and Dispute Settlement chapter rather than Rules of Origin chapter. This committee will deal with Kaesung Industrial Complex issue in the future. Overall evaluation on KORUS FTA is considered to be positive. Economically, KORUS FTA is expected to provide good opportunities for Korean companies to access the US market. Politically, Korea and the US can take advantage of KORUS FTA to reinforce the relationship between the two countries. 본고에서는 한-미 FTA 협정문 중 원산지 규정 협정문의 주요 내용을 살펴보았다. 한-미 FTA 원산지 규정은 우리나라가 기존에 체결한 FTA 협정문과 그 틀에서 크게 벗어나지는 않지만. 몇 가지 특징적인 점들이 있다. 먼저 체계면에서 기존에 통관절차장에 규정되었던 특혜관세대우 신청, 기록유지요건, 검증, 수입관련의무, 수출관련의무 등의 내용이 원산지 규정 장에 옮겨 규정되고, 섬유에 대하여 별도의 장을 두었다. 내용면에서 볼 때 누적기준, 세트물품, 간접재료, 직접운송, 대체가능재료 및 물품, 최소허용수준, 부속품·예비부품 및 공구, 상품의 세트, 소매판매를 위한 포장재료 및 용기, 수송을 위한 포장재료 및 용기 등 일반적인 내용은 이번 한-미 FTA 협정문에도 포함되었다. 다만 불인정공정 규정은 협정문에서는 제외되는 대신에 부속서인 품목별 원산지 기준에 품목별로 반영되었다. 원산지 규정 협정문에 새롭게 규정된 내용으로는 재제조물품을 들 수 있다. 한-미 FTA에서는 재제조물품에 대한 원산지 인정을 용이하게 함으로써 자원 재활용과 환경보호에 도움이 되도록 하였다. 국내 재제조 산업은 아직 걸음마 단계인 바, 한-미 FTA를 계기로 재제조 산업이 육성될 수 있는 좋은 계기가 마련되었다고 할 것이다. 품목별 원산지 기준을 산업별로 살펴보면, 농수산물 특히 기초 농산물은 기본적으로 완전생산기준에 근접한 원산지 기준을 적용해 오고 있다. 다만 육류에 대하여는 도축국 기준을 채택하여, 제3국산 생축이 역내에서 도축된 경우 원산지를 인정받도록 규정하였다. 그 외 쌀 관련 제품 등 국내적으로 민감한 품목에 대하여는 주요 재료를 역내산으로 사용하도록 하는 엄격한 원산지 기준을 규정하였다. 수산물과 관련하여서는 배타적 경제수역에서 획득한 수산물에 대하여는 연안국주의가 적용되는 것으로 규정되었다. 자동차제품에 대하여는 한-미 양국은 순원가법(Net Cost Method)과 공제법(Build-Down)/집적법(Build-Up)이 모두 역내 부가가치 계산방식으로 사용될 수 있도록 허용하였으며, 수출입업자가 동 방식 중 선택할 수 있도록 협정문에 명시하였다. 역내 부가가치 수준은 순원가법 적용시 35%, 집적법 사용시 35%, 공제법 사용시 55%에서 결정되었다. 이와 같은 역내 부가가치 수준은 기존 우리나라가 체결한 FTA에 규정되었던 수준과 큰 차이가 없는 것으로서 기업의 글로벌 소싱 경향을 반영한 것으로 평가된다. 섬유·의류 제품과 관련하여서는 기본적으로 원사기준을 수용하였으나, 예외품목을 다수 확보하였으며, TPL 물량을 많이 확보함으로써 수출가능성을 열어 놓았다. 개성공단과 관련하여 양측은 한-미 FTA협정문에 '한반도역외가공지역위원회' 근거규정을 두기로 하는 한편, 동 위원회가 역외가공지정에 관한 구체적인 기준을 정하도록 한다는 내용에 최종 합의하였다. 역외가공지역위원회의 내용은 원산지 장에서 규정되어 있지 않고, 위원회 규정을 모아 놓은 제22장 기관 및 분쟁해결 장에서 부속서의 형태로 규정되었다. 전반적으로 한-미 FTA는 성공적인 협상이었다고 할 수 있다. 경제적인 측면에서 미국이라는 거대한 시장에 접근하기 위한 중요한 교두보를 마련함과 동시에, 정치적으로도 그동안 다소 소홀했던 한-미 동맹관계도 복원하여 진정한 동반자로서의 위치를 다져갈 수 있는 좋은 계기가 되었다고 평가할 수 있을 것이다.

군사안보외교통상 정책에 대한 민주주의적 통제 ; 한미FTA와 민주주의 -주권문제를 중심으로-

김종서 ( Jong Seo Kim ) 민주주의법학연구회 2006 민주법학 Vol.0 No.32

This article aims at clarifying the legal character of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement(referred to as the KORUS FTA below), examining the problems related to it, and suggesting a way to effectively respond to it. For this purpose, I try first to verify that under Sec. 1 of Art. 60 of the Korean Constitution it cannot be permitted to conclude or ratify a treaty restricting or infringing the national sovereignty. The next step is to make it clear that the KORUS FTA is not a mere trade-related agreement, but a treaty threatening the reduction or abandonment of national sovereignty, and thereby substantially requesting the revision of the constitution. Finally, I intend to suggest some possible ways of resistance, on the part of the people, in terms of current institutional mechanisms on the one hand, and new approaches beyond established institutions on the other. It cannot be denied that the KORUS FTA is a treaty leading to the violation of national sovereignty for the following reasons: First, it restricts the authority of the national government generally and irrevocably, which necessarily leads to the violation of the sovereignty in domestic level. The KORUS FTA also infringes on the principle of sovereign equality in that it applies to all the regional and local authorities in Korea while it may not be applicable to all 50 states in the US territory. Second, it seriously violates the fundamental human rights of the people provided by the constitution, such as the right to work and to independent association, collective bargaining and collective action, the right to health, environment, education and culture. Third and finally, the KORUS FTA contradicts basic constitutional principles such as those of economic democratization, cultural state, and pacifism. Also, it might result in the formation of another economic-military block of the countries including China, Russia and North Korea, which in turn would hinder in the construction of peace regime in Korean Peninsular and obstruct the reunification of two Koreas. Considering that the KORUS FTA is a treaty against the national sovereignty and thus cannot be given consent by the Congress, the government has to stop the on-going negotiations immediately. Even if the unconstitutional elements could be eliminated and the negotiation needs to be continued, it must be carried out justifiably only under the supervision of the National Assembly and in full participation of all the people and the parties concerned. If unfortunately the negotiation reaches to a settlement contrary to the constitution, the bill for ratification of the KORUS FTA must be submitted in the form of a proposal of amendments to the constitution. The above mentioned measures, however, are not expected to be helpful to stop the conclusion and ratification of the KORUS FTA. The administration has been ignoring the voice of the people from the pre-negotiation stage on, and the Congress also has remained a mere spectator, tacitly sympathizing with the administration. The sovereign, however, has no effective means to exercise control over them. This situation shows that the current constitutional frame work, denying the status of people as the substantial sovereign, could and should no more be sustained. It is time that we should take off the regime under which the election is considered as the only way of exercising the sovereignty while it virtually has become a process of handing over the sovereignty to those political agents called the representatives. Now is the time that the people should set out to create a new constitutional system in which they can actually exercise the sovereign power, enjoy the right of self-determination, and control directly the representative s going against the will of the people. That is the only way to protect and preserve the national sovereignty against the KORUS FTA.

한미 FTA 협정문 제18장 저작권법의 형사정책적 고려

정재준(Chung, Jae-Joon) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2012 東亞法學 Vol.- No.54

1조 달러 무역규모 진입, 1인당 국민소득 2만 달러의 선진국 진입 등 우리나라의 경제성장 발달이 눈부시다. 급기야 미국과 상호 대등하게 관세장벽을 철폐하는 자유무역협정(FTA)을 체결하게 된 것은 우리 경제력의 눈부신 성장을 반영하는 것이다. 그러나 세계 1위의 경제대국인 미국과 이러한 무역협정이 우리에게 향후의 경제적 이득을 보장해 줄 것이라는 장미빛 기대를 하기에는 짚고 넘어가야 할 사안들이 많다. 미국은 한미 FTA에서 유리한 고지를 점령하고자 4대 선결 조건을 내걸었고 정례 국회보고서(USITC)를 지속적으로 제출하게 하여 한미 FTA 타결을 충분히 준비하였다. 농산물 중 땅콩(peanut) 하나의 무역거래 전망에 대해 3페이지를 할애하여 작성할 정도이니 과연 얼마나 치밀하게 이를 준비하였는지 알 수 있다. 미국은 전 세계 1위의 특허권 보유를 강점으로 지적재산권(저작권), 의료서비스 등의 폭넓은 개방을 요구하였고 자국의 권리가 침해받지 않도록 대한민국 정부가 스스로 법령을 개정하면서 지속적인 법률적 조치와 형사처벌을 할 수 있는 규정을 마련하도록 하였다. 이런 조항들은 자칫 우리 형사법 체계와 상충되기도 하고 형사정책적으로도 ‘충분히 고려되지 못했다.’라는 논란이 일고 있다. 전문가와 학자들의 한미 FTA에 대한 문제점 지적과 여론 형성에 영향을 받아, 국회 야당의원들은 비준을 반대하였다. 그러나 여당의 일방적 협정문 강행 처리로 더 큰 의구심을 낳게 되었다. 정부와 여당은 한미 FTA 협정 비준이 철회되면 한미동맹에 영향을 주며, 설사 한미 FTA의 문제점이 나타나더라도 합리적으로 해결할 수 있을 것이란 낙관적 생각을 하고 있다(I). 이에 따라 전반적인 한미 FTA 협정문의 성격과 내용을 살펴보고(II) 핵심 논란 중에서 형사법과 보다 관련성이 깊은 비친고죄화 규정(III-1)과 일시적 복제 인정(III-2)에 대한 조문의 제정ㆍ개정을 살펴보았다. 아울러 이들의 문제점과 법적 검토를 한 뒤에 전반적 대안을 제시(IV)하고자 하는 목적으로 본 논문을 작성하였다. 한미 FTA에 영향을 받아 개정되는 저작권법은 비친고죄의 확대, 일시적 복제 규정 마련을 통하여 미국과 비슷한 수준으로 저작권 보호를 강화하게 된다. 이로써 한미 FTA 협정문에 따른 형사처벌의 강화가 유도될 것인지에 관하여, 협정문이 발효되기 전에 분명 치밀한 사유와 법적 검토가 필요할 것이다. Korea’s economic growth is truly amazing, considering that Korean trade has reached one trillion dollars and the per capita income of Korea is over 20,000 dollars. The federal trade agreement (FTA) to remove the custom barriers between South Korea and the United States of America and place the two countries on equal terms (i.e., KORUS FTA) reflects South Korea’s remarkable development. However, we should ensure that a few issues are resolved before we can expect this FTA with the United States of America to produce economic benefits. The United States of America has been fully prepared to agree on advantageous terms for the KORUS FTA, having established four prerequisites for contracting effectively with South Korea and presenting regular reports continually in the United States International Trade Commission (USITC). Many Korean scholars and experts in FTAs have pointed out that the KORUS FTA will accord more benefits to the United States of America than to South Korea. In light of public opinion, the opposition party was against the FTA. Nevertheless, the ruling party unilaterally agreed to the agreement, due to the belief in the importance of an alliance with the United States of America and that the potential future problems with the KORUS FTA would eventually be resolved. The United States of America, showing the strength of its patent possession, strongly demanded that intellectual property rights (copyright), health care, etc. be opened. Furthermore, it required the Korean government to revise legislations and draw up rules for conducting investigations and imposing criminal penalties according to the KORUS FTA. These clauses could contradict the Korean criminal law system and arouse controversy over criminal policies. Therefore, I examine the general characters and contents of the KORUS FTA (Ⅱ). In this sense, this paper intends to suggest general alternatives and better choices (Ⅳ) after considering two controversial issues. One is the invalidating complaints about illegal copyright (Ⅲ-1) and the other is the permission of transitory copies (Ⅲ-2).

한국이 당사자인 ISDS 사례의 개정 한·미 FTA 「투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결제도」(ISDS)에의 시사점과 향후 대응방향

정민정(Min-jung CHUNG) 서울국제법연구원 2018 서울국제법연구 Vol.25 No.2

이 글에서는 한국이 당사자인 ISDS 사례로부터 개정 한·미 FTA의 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결제도(Investor-State Dispute Settlement: ISDS) 조항에 대한 시사점을 도출하고 향후 한국의 과제에 대하여 살펴보고자 한다. ISDS는 외국에 투자한 기업이 투자유치국의 불법·부당한 조치 등에 의하여 피해를 입었을 때, 투자유치국의 국내 법원에 의한 구제가 아닌 제3자에 의한 중재 또는 분쟁해결을 구하는 제도이다. 전세계 ISDS 청구 건수는 855건(2017년 기준)이고 미국의 ISDS 청구 건수는 166건(2018년 상반기 기준)이다. 그리고 한·미 FTA의 ISDS 채택 후 피청구국 또는 청구인의 국적이 한국인 ISDS 사건이 등장하기 시작하였다. 2018년 11월 기준으로 한국이 피청구국인 사건은 6건이고(추가로 1건 ISDS 청구 임박), 청구인의 국적이 한국인 사건은 5건이다. 최근 한·미 FTA ISDS 개정으로 ① 한국 기업에 투자한 외국인 주주의 조약 쇼핑을 예방할 수 있고, ② 한국에의 투자계획이 아닌 구체적인 투자 행위가 있는 경우에만 설립 전 투자로 인정하고 있으며, ③ 정부의 행위가 투자자의 기대에 불합치한다는 단순한 사실은 대우의 최소기준 위반이 아니며, ④ 투자자의 입증책임 부담이 명확해졌고, ISDS 등 분쟁 해결 절차에 대한 최혜국대우 조항 원용 금지를 명문화하였다는 긍정적 효과가 있다. 뿐만 아니라 한·미 FTA 개정 결과 신설된 투자챕터 부속서에는 한·미 FTA 공동위원회가 국제적인 논의 동향 등을 반영하여 ISDS 남소 방지 등 투자 챕터를 추가적으로 개선할 수 있게 하고 있다. 이와 같이 개정된 한 미 FTA ISDS가 긍정적인 효과를 거두려면 ① 한·미 FTA ISDS를 반영한 다른 BIT ISDS의 개정, ② 한·미 FTA 개정 결과 신설된 투자챕터 부속서의 절차 규정에 따른 국제사회의 논의 반영, ③ ISDS 도중 협상을 통한 분쟁종결노력, ④ ISDS에 대비한 중재인 등 전문인력 양성, ⑤ ISDS의 발생빈도가 높은 분야의 선별 및 집중과 같은 노력이 수반되어야 한다. In this article, I will draw some implications for the provisions of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) of the revised KORUS FTA from the ISDS cases to which the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “ROK”) is party and take a look at the future challenges of the ROK. ISDS is a system for seeking arbitration or dispute resolution by a third party other than a relief by a domestic court of an investment host country when a company which invested in a foreign country is injured by unlawful or unreasonable measures of the host country. According to the UNCTAD source, worldwide ISDS claims are 855 (as of 2017) and US ISDS claims are 166 (as of the first half of 2018). At the time of the incorporation of the ISDS into the KORUS FTA text were there two positions in conflict. In view of the inevitable and unavoidable adoption of the ISDS in relation to the United States, it was said that the ISDS was considered a system to resolve investment disputes in a neutral way and that US companies had a relatively low success rate. On the other hand, those who view the introduction of the ISDS negatively in relation to the US argued that the ISDS was advantageous for only US investors and corporations, can be a real threat to Korea"s public policy, and can lead to the loss of sovereignty. After the KORUS FTA entered into force, the ISDS case which the claimed country is the ROK and the applicant"s nationality is ROK has begun to appear. As of November 2018, there are six cases in which ROK was claimed against (one additional ISDS claim imminent), and five cases in which the applicants are Korean. Recently, the amendment of the Korea-US FTA ISDS is expected to prevent foreign investors" investment in Korean companies from shopping for a more advantageous investment treaty. Secondly, the revised KORUS FTA recognized certain contribution as pre-investment only when there is a specific and concrete investment activity, not the investment plan to Korea. Thirdly, the mere fact that the Government’s act is inconsistent with the investor"s expectations is not a violation of the minimum standard of treatment. Fourthly, the principle on evidence was reconfirmed in the revised KORUS FTA that the burden of proof about elements of a claim which foreign investors submit is definitely on the side of investors. Fifthly, there is a positive effect that the KORUS FTA has banned the use of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to take advantage of other international investment dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms. In addition, the KORUS FTA Joint Committee will be able to further improve the investment chapter as a result of the amendment of the KORUS FTA. In order for the revised KORUS FTA ISDS to have a positive effect, it is necessary to: ① revise the other BIT ISDS reflecting the advanced elements of the KORUS FTA ISDS; ② monitor the international discussion trends in the ICSID and UNCITRAL to deter the filing of frivolous claims by foreign investors; make every effort to close disputes through negotiations even after the initiation of the ISDS; ④ educate and train experts who will be arbitrators or legal defenders in preparation for future ISDS cases, and ⑤ select and concentrate on the industry sectors with high incident rate of ISDS.

FTA와 경쟁정책 -한미 FTA상의 경쟁 장의 내용 및 국내법제에 미칠 영향을 중심으로-

김두진 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.-

The KOREA-US Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “KORUS FTA”) was signed in April 2007 between trade negotiating representatives, and is awaiting respective legislator’s recognition. Even though the issue of recognizing KORUS FTA by the National Assembly is still in deep political debate in Korea, the KORUS FTA will be a cornerstone, if it will be effectuated, that will lead both countries into the economic progress and joint prosperity. This article is intended to provide the relationship between the FTAs and Competition Policy and the expectation about the prospective influence of KORUS FTA on the Korean competition legal system. The KORUS FTA Chapter Sixteen regulates the competition-related matters. The competition Chapter is composed of 9 articles. Among them, article 16.1 declares adopting, maintaining and applying competition measures to the anticompetitive business conduct. And Articles 16.2 and 16.3 admit room for the designated monopolies and the state enterprises. Article 16.5 guarantees transparency in the both Parties’ competition enforcement policies. And article 16.7 prescribes a consultation procedure to address specific matters that arise under competition Chapter. The expansion of the relevant geographic market through KORUS FTA might have an effect on measuring anticompetitiveness. That is why, generally speaking, once the relevant geographic market would be defined larger, the possibility of acknowledging market power might lessen. And the consent orders may be introduced into Korean competition legal system stimulated by KORUS FTA. The introduction of the consent orders will prompt the public enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly and Fair Trade Act and encourage the compensation for injured consumers. The enforcement of KORUS FTA will raise the occurrence of the international competition law cases. Classifying the cases according to the anticompetitive issues included, two approaches could be adopted to solve the problem. In hard core cartel cases, the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country may exercise jurisdiction over cartel behavior in Contracting Party, applying domestic competition Law. Differently, in cases not involving hard-core cartels, comity factors should be applied to require the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country to abstain from exercising extraterritorial competition law jurisdiction over anticompetitive conduct in Contracting Party.

한미FTA와 국가책임 : ISD에서의 간접수용과 그 헌법문제를 중심으로

한상희 서강대학교 법학연구소 2007 서강법학 Vol.9 No.1

This paper tries to test constitutionality of the expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA, which is designed to be exercised via so called investor-state dispute settlement (ISD) system according to the Chapter 11 of that FTA. Since the ISD was combined with FTA, where the first one is the NAFTA, it has construed one of the most powerful mechanism to enforce obligatory provisions of investment agreements and to protect transnational capitals. But, such system cannot be compatible with the principle of national sovereignty, so that many challenges to such ISD has been made worldwide. This paper stands on such promise that the ISD shall be held invalid under Korean Constitutional system. The expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA is another example of unconstitutionality of the KORUS FTA. That clause has two kinds of expropriation: direct and indirect. The first one requires the state to compensate any losses caused by state's taking of properties or titles even if there is no laws on that compensation. But Korean legal system does not have such kind of expropriation and compensation: according to Korean Constitutional Court, any law which empowers state to take properties or titles but has no clause on compensation for that taking, shall be held unconstitutional to be invalid. There can, accordingly, be no compensation when there is no compensation clause. In other words, no law, no compensation, and no compensation, no taking in Korean Legal system. The later one, indirect expropriation, pauses so much serious constitutional problems. Korean legal system does not know such kind of expropriation. The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court has continuously denied such one. Moreover, 'regulatory expropriation', which is typical one of the indirect expropriation, can not be conducted as a kind of expropriation, because Korean Constitution has mandated so many regulatory powers on private properties to the state. Under the constitutional orientations toward so called Sozialstaat, Korean government should implement several constitutional obiligations and mandates, if necessary, at the 'sacrifices' of private properties. Korean Constitution has made such sacrifies not as 'takings' but as 'internal limitation of the property rights'. Surely this paper is written from a kind of partisan perspective against KORUS FTA. But such political bias can be legitimated when the ideal of Korean constitutionalism toward human rights and social justice is taken into account: state's interventions into civils society and economic market for balanced and equitable development of economy and democratization of the Korean economy shall be one of the major constitutional missions. It is at this point, that the expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA can be held unconstitutional.

FTA와 경쟁정책:한미 FTA상의 경쟁 장의 내용 및 국내법제에 미칠 영향을 중심으로

김두진(Kim, DooJin) 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.-

The KOREA-US Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “KORUS FTA”) was signed in April 2007 between trade negotiating representatives, and is awaiting respective legislator’s recognition. Even though the issue of recognizing KORUS FTA by the National Assembly is still in deep political debate in Korea, the KORUS FTA will be a cornerstone, if it will be effectuated, that will lead both countries into the economic progress and joint prosperity. This article is intended to provide the relationship between the FTAs and Competition Policy and the expectation about the prospective influence of KORUS FTA on the Korean competition legal system. The KORUS FTA Chapter Sixteen regulates the competition-related matters. The competition Chapter is composed of 9 articles. Among them, article 16.1 declares adopting, maintaining and applying competition measures to the anticompetitive business conduct. And Articles 16.2 and 16.3 admit room for the designated monopolies and the state enterprises. Article 16.5 guarantees transparency in the both Parties’ competition enforcement policies. And article 16.7 prescribes a consultation procedure to address specific matters that arise under competition Chapter. The expansion of the relevant geographic market through KORUS FTA might have an effect on measuring anticompetitiveness. That is why, generally speaking, once the relevant geographic market would be defined larger, the possibility of acknowledging market power might lessen. And the consent orders may be introduced into Korean competition legal system stimulated by KORUS FTA. The introduction of the consent orders will prompt the public enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly and Fair Trade Act and encourage the compensation for injured consumers. The enforcement of KORUS FTA will raise the occurrence of the international competition law cases. Classifying the cases according to the anticompetitive issues included, two approaches could be adopted to solve the problem. In hard core cartel cases, the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country may exercise jurisdiction over cartel behavior in Contracting Party, applying domestic competition Law. Differently, in cases not involving hard-core cartels, comity factors should be applied to require the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country to abstain from exercising extraterritorial competition law jurisdiction over anticompetitive conduct in Contracting Party.

한미 FTA 재협상론 대응 수단과 트럼프 보호무역주의 향방

백일 ( Baik Il ) 국제지역학회 2017 국제지역연구 Vol.21 No.3

트럼프 당선 이후 미 국익을 최우선으로 하는 보호무역주의가 현실화하고 한미 FTA 재협상¹⁾ (또는 폐기)설이 제기되지만 전면 재협상 시나리오의 실제 전개 가능성은 높지 않다. 오히려 현실적으로 트럼프의 보호무역주의가 동원할 수 있는 실효 수단은 많지 않으므로 한미 FTA는 현상 유지 또는 부분 조정 시나리오가 유력하다. 협상이 본격적으로 재개된다고 해도 자동차는 주요 대상이 아니며, 한국 측의 대미 수입 품목 중 FTA 관련 고관세 유지 품목(쌀 등)이 지목될 가능성이 높다. 한국 측이 거꾸로 지목할 대한 수입급증 품목은 광학의료기기, 유기화학품, 항공기, 화공품 조제식료품, 무기류, 농산물 등 이다, 즉 이들 품목은 차라리 한국 측세율 조정 요구가 더 명분있다. 한미 FTA 효과 5년의 실적은 결과적으로 미국 측 유리로 작용하였으며, 이에 따르면 트럼프의 한미 FTA 재협상 요구는 명분을 상실한다. 즉 한국 측으로 보면, 심지어 폐기를 선언한다고 해도 불리하지 않다. 한미 FTA 재협상과 동반성장을 바란다면 미국의 요구가 과도함을 객관화할 필요가 있다. 한국 측은 잘못 해석 여지가 높은 총량적 무역 실적이 아니라, 미국 측에 유리하게 전개된 지난5년간 FTA 세부 운영실적을 제시할 것이며, 만약 재협상이 전개된다면 그 추진 방식으로는 상호 원하는 품목 중심으로 최소 개방하는 반포괄적이고 제한적 FTA 방식을 권고한다. Trump`s president-elect of the United States later, the trade Protectionism to regard national interests as top priority and the KORUS FTA Re-negotiation(or Rescinding of Arrangement) were brought up. Nevertheless. I think that the executions of Re-negotiation is really small possibility. Actually, Trump has not too much real effective instruments of Protectionism to use. Therefore, the most potential scenario is becoming a standstill agreement or a partial adjustment. Contrary to one`s expectations, auto market can not be the key point of re-negotiation. Because, not the aggregate record, but the real detail operation record of KORUS FTA for last 5 years was a quite advantageous circumstance for USA. On the contrary, the chief items without tariff concession as the rice may be key target of re-negotiation by USA. On Korean`s part, because of having nothing more to lose, they do not need to afraid even rescinding of KORUS FTA. If USA want to have growing together, they should ask no more an unreasonable request. Even If KORUS FTA takes a new turn of the re-negotiation, we would strongly advise the Limited, or Anti-Comprehensive FTA( low-level of FTAs in terms of contents) as the project promotion solutions.