국제법에 반하는 외국법의 효력

강병근(Kang Pyoung-Keun) 한림대학교 법학연구소 2003 한림법학 FORUM Vol.13 No.-

It is getting more interested in international law as the components of international community including national states, international organizations, and private individuals are actively involved in international affairs. During the first half of this year, it has never been seen that so much people are attracted by the discussion of the issues arising out of the military operation by the United States of America against the Iraqi Republic. It has been questioned what kind of role the international law takes with respect to the constraint of the use of military force. It is also quite often questioned whether and, if so, how international law can be applied under national judicial system with respect to the application of foreign law. Many countries have different approaches to the application of international law in the context of their legal systems. Although the legal questions in In re Kuwait Airways Corporation are mixed with legal concepts involving international law and foreign applicable law, the decision made by the House of Lords of the United Kingdom delivers a clear message to many national courts that foreign laws can not be accepted by English courts as applicable when they are in breach of international public policy. The majority of the House of Lords relied their reasons on several resolutions made by the Security Council of the United Nations for the unacceptability of the Iraqi law, inter alia, the RCC Resolution 369. It is uncertain that the Korean courts are likely to take the same approaches as the English courts have taken when the same case is disputed before them, since issues of international law have rarely been dealt with in the Korean courts. It is hoped that decisions by Korean courts on international legal issues can be assessed and commented before long.

1970년 유엔총회 결의와 국제분쟁의 평화적 해결

강병근(Pyoung Keun Kang) 국제법평론회 2007 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.26

국제분쟁의 평화적 해결이라는 주제는 조약에 기초한 국제협력 분야에서 매우 인기가 많다. 현재, 유엔조약집에 수록된 조약은 2005년까지 약 20만 건에 달하지만, 이들 조약들이 모두 분쟁해결에 관한 규정을 갖고 있는 것은 아니고, 국제법 위반을 이유로 아무 법원에나 제소할 수 있는 것도 아니다. 국제사회가 질서 있게 운영되려면 국제법을 근거로 해야 하고, 국제법이 제대로 국제사회의 질서를 유지할 수 있으려면 국제공동체의 중요한 행위자인 국가행위에 영향을 미치는 자기집행력을 가져야 한다. 결국, 분쟁해결장치가 제 기능을 수행해야만 국제공동체의 평화와 안전이 유지될 수 있기에, 북미자유무역협정(NAFTA), 유럽연합의 사법제도, 세계무역기구 (WTO)의 분쟁해결방식 등에 많은 관심이 쏠리고 있다. 1970년 유엔총회에서 결의 2625 (XXV) 를 채택한 이래 국가들은 자신들의 분쟁을 해결함에 있어서 제 3자적 분쟁해결방식을 아전에 비해서 더 많이 활용하는 경향을 보이고 있다. 국가들은 자신들이 분쟁을 평화롭게 해결할 수 있다면 국제평화와 안전을 중진시킬 것이라고 알고 있다. 또한, 자신들이 제 3자적 분쟁해결을 선택함으로써 각종 판정부나 법원이 축적한 판례법을 활용하게 될 것이라는 것도 알고 있다. 유엔회원국들은 자신들의 분쟁을 해결할 때 유엔헌장에서 인정하고 있는 여러 가지 분쟁해결 방식 중에서 적절한 것을 선택할 수 있다. 국가들이 더 많이 사법제도를 활용하거나 중재방식을 통해서 자신들의 분쟁을 해결할수록 준거법 활용이나 분쟁당사자들의 주장 방식 등은 국내법을 더 많이 닮아갈 것이다. The subject of the pacific settlement of international disputes has recently drawn great attractions in the context of international cooperation based on treaties. Although the number of treaties contained within the United Nations Treaty Series reached almost 200,000, not all of the treaties have provisions on the settlement of disputes. The orderly operation of international society hinges on international law which in tum depends on its proper function in light of the settlement of international disputes. That is the reason why the law and practice of NAFTA, EU, WTO is one of the most popular topics for the international law students. After the inception of the Friendly Relations Declaration in 1970, new trends have appeared with regard to the types of settlement of disputes involving the third parties. Compared to them in 1970s, the states in the 21 st century do not seem to have bad feelings about having their disputes settled through binding decisions by an arbitrator or a judge. It is quite remarkable in that the ICJ was not mentioned in the Declaration at all. As it was emphasized in the Declaration, the member states of the UN have the obligation to settle their disputes peacefully. States have come to know that peaceful settlements between themselves will lead to international peace and security. In particular, they somehow understand that they will get benefits from case-laws accumulated by courts and tribunals. As the states are opting more and more for binding decisions by third parties, the international litigations are going to be more and more similar 10 domestic ones in terms of the way how the governing laws are used and how the disputing parties are pursuing their claims before a tribunal or a court.

국제투자법에 따른 ‘계약상 권리’의 보호

강병근(Pyoung Keun Kang) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2009 江原法學 Vol.28 No.-

The subject of international investment law is mainly about issues surrounding the protection of investors based on general international law and bilateral or multi-lateral international investment agreements. It is well established international rules that the treaty rights of investors are protected by densely knitted networks of international treaties and customary international law. Investors are enjoying national treatment, most-favoured-nations treatment, and full compensation in the event of expropriation. They are entitled to initiate claims directly against host states through investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. Korea has negotiated and concluded more than 80 BITs, and ranks the second in Asian regions in terms of the numbers of BITs to which Korea is a party. Korea is also preparing for FTAs with various states. Many controversial issues have been raised in international treaty arbitrations. Among them are rather new issues about the difference between treaty claims and contract claims which are closely linked with umbrella clauses in international investment treaties. States have been decided responsible for internationally wrongful acts done to acquired rights based on concession agreements under the principle of state responsibility under customary international law. As international investment disputes are increasingly raised before international arbitral tribunals, the issues on the protection of contractual rights are attracting greater attention around the world. In particular, it is fiercely debated in a treaty arbitration whether the rights of investors based on investment contracts are protected by umbrella clauses. Contract claims are normally dealt with by national courts or tribunals. For the present, arbitral awards are showing different decisions on the effect of umbrella clauses in international investment treaty. It is most likely that close and detailed provisions can prevent uncertainties as to the effects of umbrella clauses on the contractual rights of investors.

투자자-국가 분쟁해결과 혜택부인의 관계

강병근(Kang, Pyoung-Keun) 한국국제경제법학회 2016 국제경제법연구 Vol.14 No.1

최근 투자자-국가 분쟁해결(ISDS)의 운용에 대해서 논란이 많다. ISDS에 따르면 외국인 투자자가 투자유치국을 상대로 국제투자협정을 근거로 국제중재를 활용할 수 있다. 이러한 국제투자중재는 1990년대 중반 이후 급격히 증가하였다. 이러한 상황에서 투자유치국은 투자 중재의 피청구국이 되지 않기 위한 여러 가지 방안을 모색하고 있다. 이들 방법 중 하나는 기존의 투자조약을 개정하거나, 새로운 투자조약을 체결할 때 투자자의 중재회부 권한을 제한하는 방안이다. 에너지헌장조약(ECT)은 1998년에 발효하였다. 현재 ECT에 근거한 중재사건은 80여건 이상으로 기록되고 있는데 이들 중 일부 사건에서 피청구국은 ECT의 혜택부인 조항을 활용하여 중재판정부의 관할권이 없다고 주장하였다. 이들 사건들은 혜택부인에 관한 ECT 제17조 제1항과 관련하여 적은 수이기는 하지만 매우 중요한 중재판정례를 형성하고 있다. ECT 규정상 제3국민의 소유나 지배 혹은 외국인 투자자가 투자유치국 내에서 실질적인 영업활동을 하지 않는 것은 혜택부인조항이 적용되기 위한 기본 요건이다. 이와 함께 이러한 사실관계에 대해서 누가 입증책임을 부담하는지 그리고 혜택부인의 효과는 소급적인지 아니면 장례적인 효과만 갖는지도 중요한 논쟁사항이다. 소위 론스타 사건에서는 벨기에 법인이 대한민국을 상대로 해서 ICSID 중재절차를 활용하고 있다. 이 사건과 관련해서 한-벨기에 BIT에서 혜택부인 조항을 규정하지 않은 점이 지적되었다. 이 점에서라도 ECT 혜택부인 조항을 둘러 싼 중재판정례는 장차 대한민국이 100여 개에 달하는 양자투자보장조약을 개정할 때 좋은 참고자료가 될 것이다. In recent times, there are pros and cons as to the operation of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement(ISDS). Under an ISDS, a foreign investor is entitled to initiate an arbitration against a host-state for the breach of an international investment agreement. There is a huge increase in the number of such arbitrations since mid-1990s. It is quite natural that a sovereign state may try to find a way to prevent the situations where she is involved in an arbitration as a Respondent State. She may want to limit the rights of investors to access to arbitration by amending her existing international investment agreements. For now, there are more than 80 arbitration cases brought under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) which entered into force in April, 1998. In a few cases among them, Respondent States have sought to limit the rights of investors to access to arbitration on the basis of a denial of benefits clause. On denial of benefits, a small but significant jurisprudence is evolving in light of Article 17(1) of the ECT. The benefits under the ECT may be denied to the Claimant investor when it is established that the Claimant is owned or controlled by a national of a third state which is not a member State of the ECT, and that the Claimant does not exercise substantial business activities in its home state which is a member state of the ECT. With regard to these two basic requirements for the operation of the denial of benefits clause, the questions may be made as to whether the burden of proof falls upon the Claimant investor or the Respondent State, and whether the benefits may be denied retrospectively or prospectively. It is not easy to extend the jurisprudence on the denial of benefits under the ECT to arbitration cases under other international investment agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, and other various BITs. There is no clause on denial of benefits in Korea-Belgium BIT of 2006 on the basis of which the Belgian subsidiaries of Lone Star Funds initiated an ICSID arbitration against the Republic of Korea. Some critics say that Korea should have amended the Korea-Belgium BIT when she was negotiating to revise it. It seems that the jurisprudence on the denial of benefits clause under the ECT deserves a great attention as the Korean government is facing already two more investment arbitrations after the Lone Star arbitration.

UNCITRAL 모델중재법의 개정

강병근(Kang Pyoung-Keun) 한림대학교 법학연구소 2006 한림법학 FORUM Vol.17 No.-

At its thirty-ninth session in July 2006, the UNCITRAL adopted its Working Group II's suggestions on the revised provisions of articles 7, 17, 35(2) of the Model Law and on the introduction of a new provision on interpretation of the Model Law as article 2 A. The Working Group II has been considering on how to update domestic arbitration laws on the question of the writing requirement for the arbitration agreement and interim measures of protection since its thirty-second session in March 2000. As for the issue of writing requirement, the Working Group II decided to present to the Commission two options at its forty-forth session in January 2006. The first option describes detailed provisions on the writing requirements. With these revised provisions, arbitration agreements made orally or exchanged through data messages could satisfy the writing requirement. The second option deletes the writing requirement altogether. The Commission has also adopted a suggestion made by its Working Group II that “a modified understanding of the writing requirement be reflected in article 35(2).” The revised article 35(2) provides that only the original award or a certified copy thereof be supplied for the enforcement of an award. As for the issue of interim measures of protection, the Working Group II agreed to create a new chapter, numbered chapter IV bis of the Model Law, for the provisions of interim measures and preliminary orders. The concept of preliminary order is devised in reflection of the strong objection to the idea of ex parte interim measures. The Commission decided to accept the suggested provisions to be inserted into the Model Law as a new chapter IV A, for theenforcement of interim measures by an arbitral tribunal to be made through a competent court, for court-ordered interim measures in support of an arbitration, and for the introduction of the regime of preliminary order into the new chapter. Under the new regime, interim measures could be recognised or enforced by a competent court, but, the preliminary order shall not be subject to enforcement by a court.

고려법학(高麗法學) 106년(106年)의 회고(回顧)와 전망(展望): 당대(當代)를 진단(診斷)하고 신시대(新時代)를 예지(叡智)한 국제법학(國際法學)

강병근 ( Pyoung Keun Kang ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2013 고려법학 Vol.0 No.68

법학연구원에서 발간하는 잡지 ``고려법학``은 멀리는 1907년 보성전문학교에서 간행한 ``법정학계``로 거슬러 올라 106년의 역사를 갖는다. 보성전문학교 시절 간행되었던 ``법정학계``를 보면 ``국제법``과 ``만국공법``, 그리고 ``국제공법``의 용어가 혼용되고 있음을 알 수 있다. 법정학계의 국제법 관련 기고문을 보면 국가의 생존을 위해서 국제공법 연구를 강조하고, 전쟁을 국가 정책 수단으로 적극 활용하던 한반도 주변 국가들의 틈바구니에서 국제법을 통해서 국가 생존을 희구하는 염원을 느낄 수 있다. 고려대학교 시절에 발간된 잡지에서는 1958년도에 이미 보편적 인권개념을 소개하고 있고, 1976년도에 국제법상 강행규범을 다룬 논문은 현재 논의되는 것과 별반 다르지 않아서 매우 주목할 만하며, 황금주 사건에 대한 소개는 현재 국내적으로 논의되는 군대 위안부 문제와 매우 상관성이 높다. 이밖에 인권관련 조약의 이행 문제를 우리나라의 헌법 질서와 연계한 점도 주목할 만하다. 전쟁법 혹은 무력충돌법 분야는 1907년 논단에서도 평시 국제법과 분리되어 인식되었다. 무력충돌법은 1950년대에는 국제 인권법 분야로 인식되었지만 1980년대에는 국제 인도법 분야에서 다루어졌고, 식민지 해방, 인민 자결권 행사와 관련해서 비국제적 무력충돌이 다루어졌다. 또한 미국의 예방 전쟁론의 정당성에 대해서 의문을 제기하는 논문이 발표되기도 하였다. 해양법 분야에서는 해양환경 보호, 대륙붕 경계 획정이나 배타적 경계 획정에 관한 사항이 다루어졌다. 동북아시아에서 해양법의 중요성은 지금도 여전한 것으로 보인다. 9/11 테러가 발생하기 훨씬 이전에 테러에 관한 사항이 논의된 점이나, 우주법에 관한 사항도 1965년에 소개된 점은 주목할 만하다. 1907년에 법정학계에 실린 논단에서 벌써 국제법과 국내법의 관계에 대해서 언급한 적이 있었지만, 1960년 대 이후 발표된 다수의 논문에서 국제조약의 국내적 효력이나 국제법의 일원론적 해석에 관한 다양한 언급이 있었다. 한국 전쟁과 관련한 국제법적 문제도 다양하게 다루어졌는데, 특히, 주한미군이 징발한 사적 재산에 대하여 보상 혹은 배상 책임을 지적한 점과 미군이 고용한 근로자의 처우에 관한 비교법적 검토, 그리고 유엔군사령부의 법적 지위를 논한 점이 주목할 만하다. 아울러, 남북한 기본합의서 채택 이후 그 성격이나 법적 지위의 특수성도 다루어졌다. 국제경제법 분야에서는 WTO의 국제 기구적 성격이 논해졌으며, EC 혹은 EU, NAFTA와 같은 지역기구도 다루어졌다. 1960년대부터 2000년대에까지 매우 다양한 분야의 국제법 사례들이 소개되었는데, 이들 사례들은 ICJ, ECJ, ECtHR과 같이 세계법원 혹은 지역법원, GATT 패널절차나 국제중재재판, 그리고 심지어는 미국 연방법원에 제기된 사건들로서 각 기고자들은 이들 사건을 매우 신속하게 소개하고 있다. 이들 사건에서 다루어진 국제법적 문제는 평화유지활동, 외교보호, 인권, 대륙붕경계획정, 도서영유권, 심각한 인권침해로 인한 국가책임 등 매우 다양하다. The history of ``Korea Law Review`` dates back to the Review of Law and Political Science published in 1907 when the words of ``international law``, ``public law of all nations``, and ``public international law`` were interchangeable. A perusal of short articles published in the Review of Law and Political Science reveals that the contributors were lamenting that the international legal system was not in favour of weak States including Korea, and that they were emphasizing the necessity of study in international law to help Korea to survive in dangerous environments where powerful states were ready to go to war to pursuit their national interests. As to the topic of international law on human rights, the concept of universal human rights was discussed in an article published as early as in 1958. The concept of jus cogens was also discussed as early as in 1976. Case comments on the Joo case before U.S. Courts have great relevance to the current discourse on the enforced sex-slaves between Korea and Japan. The implementation of human rights treaties was discussed in the context of hierarchical order within the domestic legal system of Korea. As to the topic of law of war, it is notable that the very early contributor in 1907 differentiated the international law of peace from the international law of war. the word of the international law on armed conflicts was substituted for that of the law of war and was considered within the context of international law on human rights at first, but later treated as a kind of humanitarian laws. The topic of non-international armed conflicts was discussed in the context of decolonization and peoples` right to self-determination. The legitimacy of preventive war policy taken by the U.S. after the 9/11 terrorist attack was questioned in the sense of traditional international law on armed conflicts. As to the topic of international law of the sea, such issues as the protection of marine environment, disputes arising out of delimitation of continental shelf and economic zones were discussed. Some comments on the importance of the international law of the sea in the North East Asia are still worth noting. The topic of terrorism was dealt with in two articles well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. It is notable that the Space Law was anticipated to develop in various dimensions well before Korea was not ready to launch satellites into the outer space. It is fascinating that an article on the relation between international law and domestic law was published as early as in 1907. Various contributors discussed such issues as the domestic implication of international law in terms of monism or the application of human rights treaties. Among international law issues raised out of the aftermath of the Korean War were the U.S. responsibilities for the requisition of private properties during the Korean War and for the treatment of Korean workers employed by the U.S. military stationed in Korea after the War, and the status of the United Nations Command in Korea. In addition, the Framework Agreement between the two Koreas was discussed with regard to its nature and legal status against the background of the relation between the two Koreas. As to the topic of international economic law, the legal status of WTO as an international organization and the regional organization such as EC, EU, and NAFTA were discussed in various articles. Many contributors dealt with international law disputes before ICJ and an international arbitration tribunal, regional Courts including ECJ and ECtHR, GATT Panels and even before national courts. The issues covered in those case comments were related with Peace-keeping Operations, diplomatic protection, human rights, delimitation of continental shelf, title to islands, and state responsibility due to serious violation of human rights.

국제 분쟁해결 절차규칙의 개정 -2010년 UNCITRAL 중재규칙을 중심으로

강병근 ( Pyoung Keun Kang ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2011 고려법학 Vol.0 No.60

The 2010 Rules are originated from the Arbitration Rules which the UNCITRAL adopted in 1976. They were firstly tested in the proceedings before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. Inspired by the success of the Rules, many arbitral institutions around the world began adopting them as their arbitration rules in modified as well as in original form. In BITs and FTAs, the words of "the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules" are almost automatically inserted in provisions on dispute settlement as one of the options for treaty-based investor-state arbitrations. In 2006, the UNCITRAL decided to get its Working Group II to start the project on the revision of the 1976 Rules. The 2010 Rules are the result of the hard work of the Working Group II from September 2006 until February 2010. The revised version of the 1976 Rules, that is the 2010 Rules, have contents newly added and some words of them are copied exactly in the same way or quite similarly from the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006. Many provisions of the 2010 Rules have been restructured so that their readability has been heightened. Furthermore, the 2010 Rules provide that traditional ad hoc international arbitration should be linked with treaty based investor-state arbitration although further works are scheduled to be started right after the adoption of the Rules. The follow-up works have just begun at the recent 53rd session of the Working Group II in Vienna in October this year. The impact of the 2010 Rules in Korea is likely to be about the arbitral proceedings on ad hoc basis, the arbitral proceedings administered by arbitral institutions, and the mixed or treaty-based arbitration. All in all, it is too early to estimate the impact of the 2010 Rules in Korea as well as in Asia. It is, however, most likely that just as the impact of the 1976 Rules has been considerable enough to drive arbitration institutions in various regions to revise their arbitration rules, the 2010 Rules will be a good food for thoughts when the arbitration institutions in Asia are going to change their arbitration rules.

국제법의 국내 적용에 관한 영국의 법체계와 경험

강병근(Pyoung keun Kang) 국제법평론회 2008 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.28

국제법과 국내법의 관계에 대한 법원의 태도는 특정 국가의 법문화에 따라서 달라질 수 있다. 국제법원은 국내법 위반을 이유로 국제법상의 의무를 회피할 수 없다는 입장을 견지하고 있다. 주권원칙상 국가들은 국제법정에서 혹은 국제중재법정에서 소송하기를 원한다. 대륙붕, 영해 등 해양경계획정과 관련한 사항은 ICJ에서 다루어지는 전형적인 분쟁에 속한다. 하지만, 국내법원에서만 다루어지는 국제법문제도 있다. 국가의 영토관할권 행사로부터 면제되는지의 여부에 관한 국가 법원의 판단은 국가면제에 관한 국제법 법원의 상당부분을 차지한다. 국내법원은 국제인권기준, 외국인 재산의 국유화에 대한 보상기준, 국제환경기준, 관할권의 역외적용, 그리고 ‘국제법’ 문제라고 생각할 수 있는 수많은 사항들에 대해서 판단하고 있다. 또한, 국내법원은 국제조약의 해석 혹은 적용과 관련한 청구사항을 다룰 때, 국제관습법의 적용 여부를 결정하거나, 어떠한 인권기준을 적용할 것인지를 고민하고, 국내법인 준거법의 내용이 국제법을 위반하기에 적용되지 않는다는 판단을 내려달라는 요청을 받기도 한다. 법원에서 다투어지는 사항이 준거법인 국제법규범의 내용을 결정하는 것이 아니라 국제법과 국내법이 충돌하면 국내법령을 우선할 것인지, 아니면 국제법상의 의무를 우선할 것인지의 여부가 문제된다. 이러한 문제는 법이론으로 해결하기보다 해당 문제가 제기된 법원의 판단을 근거로 해결하는 것이 보다 현실적이다. 영국법상 조약은 기존 법령에 함축적으로 포함되어 있거나 기존 법령을 통해서 이행되지 않으면, 의회가 이행법률을 제정해야 영국 내에서 법적 효력을 갖는다. 국제관습법의 경우는 잉글랜드 법원이 내린 판결을 토대로 발달한 판례법의 일부이기에 법원이 판단근거로 삼을 수 있다. 영국과 같이 조약이 직접 국내법으로 수용되지 않으면 내부적으로 조약의 효력을 인정하지 않는 이원론국가 내에서 법원이 국제법적인 사항들을 검토할 기회는 현저히 줄어든다. 하지만, 영국의 법역 내에서 국제법과 국내법의 관계에 관한 법리 논쟁은 계속될 것이기에, 현재와 같은 분권화된 국제법질서에서 영국 법원이 국제법에 기여할 여지는 충분히 남아 있다. 이 점에서, 일견 국제법과 국내법질서가 혼재되어 있는 상황에서 질서를 찾기 위해서라도, 국내법원이 국제법문제에 봉착하게 될 때 닥치는 사항들을 유형화하고, 여러 쟁점들을 개념별로 분류하면 국제법을 이해하는데 많은 도움이 될 것이다. The relationship between international law and domestic law can be varied by the legal culture of a state. It is established under international law that international responsibility cannot be avoided on the grounds of the breach of domestic law. States are usually litigating against another state before international courts or tribunals. Nevertheless, there are some international issues only dealt with by domestic courts. The issues on whether an entity enjoys immunity from the territorial jurisdiction of a state can only be dealt with by the competent courts in that state. The judgments or decisions made by national courts are prime sources of international law on the law of state immunity. National courts enter into the area of various issues on international law including the standards based on international instruments on human rights, treatment of foreigners in terms of nationalization, international environmental standards, extraterritoriality of national statutes. National courts are getting more involved in the interpretation and application of treaties, the effects of international customs, and are sometimes required to make a decision that a legislation should not be applied because of its breach of international law. When the effects of national law is questioned against the background of international law, the national courts do not decide whether the national law is void or not, but decide whether the national law applies before the international law does. Although there have been serious debates on different theories surrounding the effect of international law in a national state, it seems more reliable that the matter should be delivered on the basis of decisions by national courts rather than legal theories. Under the English law, treaties should be introduced or transformed into English laws before taking effects. International customary laws are consulted when they are developed as a part of English common law. Theoretically, dualist states such as the United Kingdom can not actively participate into developing international law since treaties are not effective before their introduction or transformation in the law of the U.K. Nevertheless, the English courts are one of the busiest courts in the world in dealing with cases on international law. Even though some lawyers are keeping on deaf ears in light of arguments based on international law, there are very active and experienced judges who are willing to determine the complicated issues on the relationship between international law and English law. With regard to English law, it seems helpful that issues on international law raised before the English courts should be categorized and classified to understand how the courts deal with those issues.

네덜란드의 인도네시아 식민지배 배상판결에 관한 연구

강병근(Kang Pyoung keun) 국제법평론회 2014 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.40

The judgment on the Rawagede case by a Dutch court in the Hague is at the intersection of law and history, which led the Dutch community to look straight into the past that they have had eschewed so long. In a broad dimension, it seems that the judgment shed more light on the dark side of the Dutch colonial rule than the Rawadege massacre itself. What made the judgment is the arrival of the Dutch new generation since 2010 who were able to have the courage of rejecting the rule of extinctive prescription. The court in the Rawagede case restricted the effects of extinctive prescription under the Dutch law. This is consonant with an international trend where international crimes including crimes against humanity are not time-barred in international criminal litigation. The Rawagede event was judged as one of the flaws in Dutch history. The victims should have been respected and compensated by the Dutch government 30 or 40 years earlier. The plaintiffs of victims died pending litigation and are aged well over 80s or sometimes 90s when the judgment was finally made in favour of them. Damages of ?? 20,000 were awarded to each plaintiff and followed by sincere 'apology' from the Dutch political leaders. It was the UN CGO that made the judgement possible. The works of the UN CGO were appreciated by the court of the Rawagede case. It is remarkable that the format envisaged by Article 3(3) of the so-called Claims Agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan of 1965 is very similar to the way how the UN CGO was constituted.

국제투자중재판정의 취소와 중재지 법원의 관할권

康炳根(Pyoung-Keun Kang) 대한국제법학회 2006 國際法學會論叢 Vol.51 No.2

이 사건은 미국 회사인 OEPC와 에콰도르를 당사자로 하는 국제투자중재에서 부터 시작하였다. 중재절차에서 OEPC는 에콰도르가 부가세환급을 거부함으로써 미국-에콰도르 BIT를 위반하였다고 주장하였다. 중재판정부는 에콰도르가 미국-에콰도르 BIT 규정을 위반하였다는 이유로 OEPC에게 유리한 중재판정을 내렸다. 에콰도르는 자신에게 불리한 중재판정을 취소하기 위하여 중재지 법원인 잉글랜드 법원에 제소하였다. 이 사건의 첫 단계는 잉글랜드 법원이 국제투자중재판정의 취소소송에서 잉글랜드 법상 재판부적격이론으로 인하여 중재판정부의 관할권 없음을 이유로 한 중재판정 취소신청을 판단할 수 없는지의 여부가 다투어졌고, 두 번째 단계에서는 본안사항으로서 중재지법인 잉글랜드 중재법에 따라서 해당 중재판정을 취소할 것인지의 여부가 다투어졌다. 잉글랜드 법원은 비록 잉글랜드 법상 주권국가의 국제거래와 관련해서 법원이 판단할 수 없다는 원칙, 즉, 재판부적격원칙이 있지만 이번 사건과 같이 중재지가 런던이 됨으로써 잉글랜드 법에 근거를 확실히 둔 경우에 그러한 원칙은 적용되지 않는다고 판단하였다. 따라서 잉글랜드 법원은 잉글랜드 법을 명확히 하기 위해서라면 영국이 당사국이 아닌 국제조약에 대해서 판단할 수 있다는 것이다. 중재판정취소소송의 본안 사항에 대해서 잉글랜드 법원은 중재판정부가 관할권을 위반하지 않았다고 판단함으로써 에콰도르의 청구를 기각하였다. 이미, 국제투자중재에서 내려진 중재판정에 대한 중재판정취소소송이 다른 국가의 국내법원에 제기된 적이 있었기 때문에 잉글랜드 법원에 이러한 중재판정취소소송이 제기된 것이 그리 놀랄 일은 아니다. 하지만, 이 사건에서 잉글랜드 법원이 결부된 것은 중재지가 런던으로 정해졌기 때문이고, 이 사건에서 런던은 당사자가 아닌 중재판정부가 정하였다는 점이 특기할 만하다. 이 사건은 여러 나라와 자유무역협정을 준비하고 있는 우리나라에게 우리 정부가 중재피신청인이 될 때 중립적인 중재지는 어디가 될 것인지, 또한 국제투자중재와 관련해서 우리나라가 중립적인 중재지가 될 수 있을 것인지, 그리고 우리법원도 국제투자중재의 취소소송을 담당할 수 있는 역량을 갖고 있는지에 대해서 여러 가지 생각을 불러일으키고 있다. The Occidental Exploration and Production Company(“OEPC”) is an American company which is operating in the Republic of Ecuador. OEPC initiated an investment arbitration against Ecuador under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules on the basis that Ecuador had been in breach of her obligations under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Agreement(“BIT”). OEPC got an arbitral award in its favor. Ecuador submitted an application for the annulment of the arbitral award before the English High Court, since London had been chosen as the place of arbitration. This comment is mainly about the two phases of litigations before the English courts. The first phase is about the preliminary matter as to whether the English court has the power to hear and decide the claims of Ecuador that the arbitral tribunal had made an award without jurisdiction with respect to the provisions of the BIT. Under the English jurisprudence of non-justiciability, English courts should be restrained from exercising their jurisdictions to determine the legality of transactions of sovereign foreign states between themselves on the plane of international community. In this case, the English trial court and appellate court have decided that the English doctrine of non-justiciability is not applicable. In the second phase, the English court has dealt with the merits of the claims made by Ecuador, and then made its judgement in favour of OEPC that the arbitral tribunal did have jurisdiction to decide the matter whether Ecuador had breached her obligations under the BIT. This case is not surprising because there are already several cases reported where arbitral awards from international investment arbitration were challenged before the national courts where the arbitration had taken place. Nevertheless, this case is showing us many insights of how the Korean Government should be prepared for the possibilities where Seoul is chosen as a neutral place of international investment arbitration. In that circumstances, it could be the Korean courts before which foreign investors and sovereign states could dispute with each other in relation to the interpretation of a BIT to which Korea is not a party.