국제통상규범으로서 경쟁법의 적용가능성 연구

권현호(Kwon, Hyunho) 한국국제경제법학회 2014 국제경제법연구 Vol.12 No.2

본 연구는 경쟁법이 국제통상법의 한 부분으로 국제통상 관계에 직접 적용될 수 있는가에 대하여 검토하였다. 이를 위해 본 논문은 다자간 차원에서는 GATT/WTO법에서의 경쟁규범의 모습을 검토하였으며, 지역/양자간 차원에서는 우리나라가 체결한 FTA에서의 경쟁규범의 내용을 살펴보았다. 또한 본 연구는 국가의 경쟁정책과 관련된 통상분쟁이 어떤 방식으로 해석되고 그 한계는 무엇인지에 대하여 GATT/WTO의 주요 판례를 통해 검토하였다. 이러한 연구의 결과 비록 GATT/WTO의 실체법은 통상관계에 영향을 미치는 경쟁규범을 일부 협정들에 포함하고 있긴 하지만, 민간 당사자의 행위로 이루어지는 경쟁제한적 영업관행(RBP)을 직접 규율하는 좁은 의미에서 국제경쟁법의 내용은 현 WTO 협정에는 명시되지 않았으며, 다만 공정한 경쟁을 제한하는 행위에 대하여 그것이 기존 WTO법에 위반될 때 WTO 분쟁해결제도를 통한 조치가 가능함을 알 수 있다. 이처럼 통상규범으로서 경쟁규범의 적용에서 가장 핵심적인 쟁점은 반경쟁적 행위의 대부분은 민간 당사자에 의해 이루어지고 있으나 민간의 행위 그 자체는 국제통상법의 규율대상이 아니라는 점이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 통상법은 ‘불공정한 경쟁’을 제한하는 많은 판례를 두고 있고, 이는 넓은 의미의 ‘경쟁’의 조건 또는 경쟁 기회의 동등성을 보호하고자 하는 것으로 이해되며, 그 결과 다양한 기존 WTO 규범의 위반형태로 제기되었다. 이상의 논의를 종합하여 보면 국제통상 관계에서 경쟁규범의 실질적이고 효과적인 집행을 위해서는 포괄적이고 독립된 다자간 경쟁법이 체결되는 것이 가장 확실한 방법으로 생각된다. 그러나 경쟁법의 다자규범화는 아직까지 결실을 이루지 못하고 있고, 이러한 현실을 타개하기 위한 대안으로 국내경쟁법의 역외적용이나, FTA 등과 같은 양자협정의 적용 확대 등이 제시되고 있다. 그러나 이러한 대안은 잠정적 대안이 될 수는 있지만 통상 분야에 적용되는 국제경쟁법의 궁극적 대안이 되기는 어렵다고 보인다. 따라서 국제통상법으로서의 다자간 국제경쟁법의 수립방향은 우선 WTO에서 협상과 채택이 가능한 핵심원칙만을 포함한 골격협정(framework agreement)에서 논의를 시작해야 할 것으로 보인다. 그러나 이러한 논의가 어려운 경우, 협정에 참여하는 국가들 사이에 먼저 적용될 수 있도록 복수국간협정(plurilateral agreement)의 형식으로 체결되는 것도 유력한 대안으로 검토할 필요가 있다. It is legally studied that an direct applicability of competition law as an part of the international trade law in this paper. For this purpose, a number of laws and regulations related to competition policy in some FTAs for regional trade as well as GATT/WTO system for multilateral trade are examined. This study is also examined some GATT/WTO cases interpreting competition policy. In consequence, we are not able to find international competition law directly regulating restrictive business practices by private actors, in the narrowest sense, affecting the relationship between international trade and competition policy in domestic law, even though there are some rules and/or regulations in a couple of GATT/WTO agreements related to competition policy affecting international trade. This is evident that private actors do not have a legal personality as parties in the WTO disputes even if they actually play an important role in anti-competitive behaviors. Therefore, for substantially and effectively enforcing competition law in the international trade, it is a basic prerequisite to establish a comprehensive and independent multilateral international competition law. Unfortunately the discussions for setting a multilateral competition law in the WTO were driven to a corner, and then, it is suggested that extraterritorial application of domestic competition law as well as competition regulations in FTAs as alternative measures for breaking this deadlock. However, this suggestion may not be a fundamental solution for building an international competition law. Therefore, this paper makes two practicable alternative approaches for establishing an international competition law as a part of an international trade law: One is to conclude a “framework agreement” including only fundamental principles that can be accepted by the WTO Members, and another is to making a “plurilateral agreement” which can apply only to the Members participated in this agreement.

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.

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.