프랑스의 ADR제도 -법원관련 중개 및 조정제도를 중심으로

이로리 ( Lo Ri Yi ) 안암법학회 2009 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.29

의약품 특허보호 관련 TRIPS-Plus협정의 법적 쟁점 및 시사점

이로리 ( Lo Ri Yi ) 안암법학회 2012 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.38

The TRIPS-Plus Agreement refers to Free Trade Agreements having provisions that restrict flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement (hereinafter "TRIPS") or that provides more protection than the requirement of the TRIPS. While the main function of patent system is to compensate innovation, fully functioning patent increases the price of pharmaceuticals so from the perspectives of public health, it may potentially influence on the access to medicine especially in developing countries which cannot afford. TRIPS-Plus Agreement includes patent term extension, compulsory licensing, data exclusivity, linkage between approval and patent, parallel imports. It could be easily found in the FTAs lead by the United States. In terms of the access to medicine, if the parties to the FTAs adopting TRIPS-Plus standards restrict compulsory licensing, parallel imports and extend patent term, then the availability of generic drugs which are low price compared to the original drugs is prevented. The requirement of data exclusivity and linkage of approval and patent have a possibility of making it impossible for manufacturers of generic drugs to get approval even in case of compulsory licensing or preparation phrase for the entry on the expiration of patent. Patent linkage which does not exist in the TRIPS create an obligation for the regulatory authorities to prevent possible infringement of patent which is private right or at least to decide possibility of infringement. Given the original function of the authorities and limited resource, it may be a significant burden for the authorities concerned. In terms of the international law, the relationship between the TRIPS-Plus and the TRIPS can be understood as modification of multilateral treaties between certain of the parties only in the context of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Such modification should not prohibited by the treaty and should not affect the enjoyment by the other parties and should not be incompatible of the object and purpose of the treaty as a whole. There may be a controversy whether the TRIPS-Plus Agreement affect potentially the benefits of other WTO Members under the TRIPS Agreement. To avoid a possible conflict, some FTAs include side letters or understanding mentioning that the TRIPS-Plus agreement does not prevent the ability of the parties to take measures for the public health under the TRIPS Agreement but those documents have a limited value of interpretation. It does not mean that it is applied overriding the TRIPS-Plus Agreement. In conclusion, although developing countries retain some flexibilities under the TRIPS to take measures to protect public health pursuant to their social and economic priority, the TRIPS-Plus Agreement may be erode or limit significantly the protection of public health and the access to medicine if it becomes a general trend of increasing the required protection.

EU의 항공분야 배출권거래제 편입조치의 적법성에 관한 유럽사법법원 판결의 법적 쟁점 및 평가

이로리 ( Lo Ri Yi ) 안암법학회 2013 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.41

Upon the request of the U.K Court (High Court of Justice of England and Wales) for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the Directive 2008/101/EC amending Directive 2003/87/EC(Emission Trading System Directive) so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, on 21 December 2011, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter "ECJ") made a preliminary ruling that the inclusion of aviation in the EU Emission Trading System (hereinafter "ETS") was valid. The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns first, the circumstances in which principles of customary international law and provisions of international treaties may be relied upon in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a measure, and secondly, the validity of Directive 2008/101/EC, in the light of related customary international law and international treaties. The ECJ found that three principles of customary international law such as the principle that each State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its airspace, the principle that no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty, and the principle which guarantees freedom to fly over the high seas and the Air Transport Agreement (Arts. 7, 11(1), 2(c) and Art. 15(3) read in the conjunction with Arts. 2 and 3(4)) were recognized as legal basis for the examination on the validity of Directive 2008/101 in question. Its ruling has brought out many controversies in terms of the international law, inter alia, on the issue of extraterritoriality of the Directive 2008/101 and the exclusion of the Chicago Convention from the legal basis. On the issue of extraterritoriality, the ECJ denied its effect of extraterritoriality saying that it applies to the aircraft of which arrival and landing take place within the EU on the basis of territoriality but as the design of the ETS applying to the aviation covers emissions from the international aviation taken place in the skies of the high seas or third countries where the EU has no jurisdiction, the ruling is very controversial and subject to many critics. On the legal basis for the examination on the validity of Directive in question, the ECJ refused to consider the Chicago Convention which is the primary source of the international air law because it does not bind the EU although it binds all the 27 Member States. Given the mandatory nature of the Convention in the civil aviation field and Art. 351 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union mentioning the duty of the EU institutions not to impede the performance of the Member States of the obligations under the pre-existing international treaties, it should be included as a legal basis for its legal examination.

"브라질-재생 타이어 수입에 영향을 주는 조치"사건 -GATT1994 XX조의 적용을 중심으로-

이로리 ( Lo Ri Yi ) 안암법학회 2010 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.32

`Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres` (hereinafter `Brazil-Tyres case`) is the first WTO dispute complained by a developed countries (EC) addressing a trade-restrictive measure introduced by a developing country (Brazil) to achieve public health and environmental goals. The findings of the Appellate Body in this case seems to broaden the scope of the GATT1994 Article XX by showing some defence to non-trade policy objectives and an appreciation of the complexity of environmental problems, and the need for a comprehensive response including various measures. Some implications regarding the application of Article XX in this case are as following: First, regarding the necessity test under para. (b) of Article XX, the WTO Members have rights to decide on the level of protection and the necessity test should include the weighing and balancing of relevant factors such as the public or environmental objectives to achieve through adopted measures or polices, relative importance of the goal pursued by the policy, the contribution of the measure to the achievement of its objective and its trade-restrictive effects. Second, the contribution of the measure to the achievement of its objective exists only when there is a genuine relationship of ends and means between the objective pursued and the measure at issue. The panel, as a trier of the facts, enjoy a certain latitude in designing the appropriate methodology to use and deciding how to structure or organize the analysis of the contribution. Third, in examining the trade-restrictive effect of the measure and possible alternatives to the measure, if the measure at issue plays a role as a component of a comprehensive strategy achieving the policy objective, its possible alternatives should be considered in the context of the overall effect of policy and synergy among the components. Fourth, regarding the application of the chapeau of Article XX, the examination whether the measure at issue constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination should be accompanied with an analysis of the reason or cause for discrimination. The Appellate Body was more receptive to the particular conditions and policy objectives of developing WTO members. This change may indicate the early signs of accepting distinction between WTO members based on their need for special or differential treatment when interpreting the GATT exceptions.

地理的標示와 商標의 關係에 관한 通商法的 考察

李露利(Lo-Ri Yi) 대한국제법학회 2005 國際法學會論叢 Vol.50 No.3

지리적표시와 상표는 상품을 구별하는 식별표지로서 높은 명성과 상업적 가치를 갖는다는 점에서 유사하지만 지리적표시가 상품의 품질, 명성 또는 기타 특징과 관련한 지리적 원산지를 나타내는 표시이고 상표는 상품 또는 서비스의 식별 가능한 출처로서 지리적 명칭이 아닌 특정 기업 또는 단체표장인 경우 특정 단체와 그 회원을 나타낸다는 점에서 차이가 있다. 그런데 상표가 지리적 명칭 또는 심볼과 같은 지리적표시를 포함하거나 그러한 표시로 구성되는 경우, 동일 표지가 상표와 지리적표시로 각각 주장될 수 있으므로 이 경우 충돌문제가 발생한다. TRIPS협정은 이 문제에 대한 골격원칙을 제시하고 있다. 첫째, 표시된 지역을 원산지로 하지 않는 상품에 대하여 상표에서의 표시의 사용이 상품의 진정한 원산지에 대하여 대중의 오인을 유발할 성격을 갖는다면 그러한 상표등록을 거절 또는 무효화 하여야 한다. 둘째, WTO협정이 발효되고 그 회원국에서 지리적표시 보호가 개시되기 이전에 적용되어 왔거나 선의로 등록된 상표는 지리적표시와 동일 또는 유사하다고 하여 상표 등록의 적격성, 유효성, 사용권에 침해를 받지 않는다. 상표법에 따라 단체표장 또는 인증마크로 지리적표시를 보호하는 경우는 선착순원칙에 따라 先 신청, 先 사용 또는 先 사용에 근거하여 충돌문제를 해결하기 때문에 상표와 지리적표시의 공존문제는 발생하지 않지만, 보다 적극적인 지리적 표시제도를 두고 있는 경우 기존상표와 지리적표시의 충돌 범위, 예컨대, 상표의 명성, 주지성 및 그 상표가 사용된 기간에 비추어 상품의 진정한 정체성에 대하여 소비자를 오인시킬 가능성, 지리적표시의 사용이 상표의 명성, 식별성에 불리하게 작용하는 지 여부 등을 감안하여 지리적표시의 등록을 거절하도록 하여, 일정한 경우 지리적표시와의 공존 가능성을 인정하는 경우도 있다. 결국, 상품의 진정한 원산지와 진정한 정체성에 대하여 대중을 오인케 하거나 기만시킬 가능성이 있는 한도 내에서 먼저 등록 또는 사용된 권리에 우선권을 주지만, 먼저 등록된 상표와 지리적표시와의 관계에 있어서는 나중의 지리적표시가 기존의 상표에 대한 권리를 침해하지 않는 범위 내에서 공존이 인정될 수 있다. 그러한 범위는 서술적 용어의 ‘공정한 사용’의 범위가 되는데, 여기에는 상표 소유자와 제3자의 적법한 이해관계가 반드시 고려되어야 한다. Geographical indications (hereinafter 'GIs') and trademarks protected under the TRIPS Agreement are legally different intellectual property rights. However, the issue of the conflict between two intellectual properties could be raised in the situation where a sign is used by different parties as a trademark and as a geographical indication for the same product. The TRIPS Agreement sets out two general principles on this issue. First, WTO Members should refuse or invalidate the registration of a trademark which contains or consist of a geographical indication with respect to goods not originating in the territory, if use of the indication in the trademark for such gods in that Member is of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the true place of origin. Second, where a trademark has been applied for or registered in good faith, or where rights to a trademark have been acquired through use in good faith either before the date of application of WTO GI protection obligation or before the geographical indication is protected in its country of origin, on the basis that such a trademark is identical with, or similar to, a geographical indication, eligibility for or the validity of the registration of a trademark, or the right to use a trademark should not be prejudiced. Where geographical indications are protected as collective or certification marks, their protection is governed by the trademark law. The conflicts between geographical indications protected as collective or certifications marks and individual trademarks could be resolved by application of the principle of priority as general principle under the trademark law. Under the system which protects geographical indications as sui generis rights, there are several options such as giving priority to registered geographical indications over competing trademarks, priority to trademarks over competing registered geographical indications and coexistence between two competing rights depending on various factors. Decisions on the relationship between trademarks and geographical indications are made on a case by case considering the range of conflict such as the likelihood of confusion or of misleading the public as to the true identity of the goods.

국제항공 배출권거래제도에 관한 논의 동향과 법적 문제

이로리(YI Lo Ri) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2013 통상법률 Vol.- No.111

According to the mandate of the Kyoto Protocol (art.2(2)), the ICAO has discussed on how to limit or reduce aviation emissions since 1998, however, there has been few progress in the discussion and work. While there was no international agreement reached at the international level, the unilateral measure taken by the EU which incorporate international aviation into the EU Emission Trading System which has been in place since 2005 provoke the strong opposition both of aviational industry and many other member countries of the ICAO and also provided an motive for the ICAO to accelerate its work on Market - Based Measures (MBMs) including emission trading system. After ICAO’s turing to active position on that matter, the EU announced the suspension of the application of the Aviation ETS Directive and its willing to wait for the results of the ICAO’s Assembly to be held in September 2013. However, it dose not seem for the ICAO to suggest a strong and binding proposal on the MBMs including the emission trading at the coming ICAO’s Assembly in light of the disagreement on the issues of the MBMs within the High Level meeting held in May. The reasons why the discussion in the ICAO makes no further agreement can be explained by two conflicting issues. One is the conflict between the competence of the ICAO promoting the growth of aviation industry and the goal of reducing emission from aviation and the other is the conflict between the principles of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (stipulated both in the UNFCC and the Kyoto Protocol) supported by developing countries and non–discrimination (of the Chicago Convention) supported by developed countries such as the european countries. Those issues of conflicts lead the negotiation to the impasse. As the inclusion of aviation into the EU ETS taken by the EU covers emissions taken place outside the EU, the legality of the measure was raised in terms of extraterritorial jurisdiction and de facto discrimination against foreign airlines. The European Court of Justice affirms the validity of the measure in light of the examination on the related international law in its preliminary ruling held on 21 December 2011. It denied the extraterritorial application of the Directive. Given the specific nature of climate change, a kind of climate change measure may have extraterritorial effect. The legality of the measure taken unilaterally for the environmental objective by a country such as the EU Aviation ETS Directive depends on securing the justification for its measure through bilateral or multilateral negotiations with the interested countries which are affected by the measure.

조정인 인증제에 관한 국제적 동향 : 미국 및 유럽 국가들을 중심으로

이로리 한국중재학회 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.2

조정인의 교육은 조정의 질과 관련된 문제로 조정인의 자격요건에 조정경험이나 조정교육의 이수를 요구하는 것은 조정을 적극적으로 장려하는 선진국들이 주로 채택하는 방식이며, 세계적인 흐름이기도 하다. 조정인 인증제는 조정인의 조정교육 참여를 유도함으로써 조정의 질과 조정에 대한 신뢰성을 확보하는 수단으로 활용되고 있다. 미국, 유럽국가들 대부분은 분쟁을 조정하는데 있어 조정인에게 일정한 수준의 조정교육이 필요하다는 데 공통된 인식을 하고 있다. 미국, 영국 같이 민간조정이 활성화된 영미법계 국가에서는 주로 민간 주도형 인증제를 실시하며, 오스트리아, 벨기에, 독일 (예정) 등과 같은 대륙법계 국가들은 국가 관리형 인증제를 실시하고 있다. 두 가지 유형 모두 조정인 인증제가 최소한의 조정의 질을 확보하고, 조정인의 자발적인 조정훈련 참여를 유인하는 수단으로 활용된다는 점에서 공통점을 갖는다. A study on the global trend of accreditation for mediators implies many important aspects of controlling of the quality of mediation. Firstly, whether or not having an accreditation system, most European countries and the U.S. have a common understanding on the fact that mediators need to be trained to mediate disputes, apart from their own expertise on the subject matters. Secondly, private-led accreditation has been utilized in countries having a Anglo-American law system such as the United Kingdom and the U.S. a while nation-managed one has been operated in the countries having a continental law system such as Austria, Belgium, Italy and Germany. Thirdly, private mediation service providers (usually institutions or companies) play an active role in the training and accreditation of mediators and further make them act as mediators in the disputes referred to them. Fourthly, the countries having a nation-managed accreditation system usually stipulate a certain mediation training and accreditation requirement by law. Fifthly, there is no uniform trend on the minimum hours of training required for accrediting the mediators. Sixthly, mediation training generally focuses on the practical mediation capacity-building, including mediation theory and role-playing, mediation simulations, peer review and supervision. And finally, the mediation theory mainly includes the role of mediator, mediation procedures, mediation communication, negotiation and communication skills, mediation ethics and mediator’s code of conduct, etc.