국제투자중재에서의 공기업 관련 국제법적 문제

장석영(Chang, Sok Young) 국제법평론회 2019 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.53

Since the mid-1990s, there has been a significant increase in the number of international investment disputes and dozens of new investment disputes are brought to international arbitration every year. Moreover, the investors tend to submit the claims directly against the host states when the dispute arises out of a contractual breach by state-owned enterprises, and Dayyani v. Korea is one of them. In Dayyani v. Korea, Korea has become a respondent state due to the conduct of the state-owned entity, and this kind of investment disputes raises a number of issues concerning the status of state-owned enterprises in public international law. However, problems related to the status of state-owned entities in international investment arbitration have not been discussed in much detail so far, and moreover, the existing research in this field is usually focused on the protection of investors or the substantive standards of treatment. Therefore, it is important to identify some common problems regarding the relationship between state-owned enterprises and the host states that could be raised at each stage of arbitral proceedings. By looking at the issues regarding personal jurisdiction, state responsibility, and the enforcement of arbitral awards, this thesis seeks to explore the ways that the host states, including Korea, could deal with these problems in arbitral proceedings. First, with regard to the establishment of the jurisdiction of ICSID, there can be two kinds of respondents in investor-state arbitration: state-owned company as a respondent, or host state as a respondent state. Regarding the latter, it is questionable whether the host state could be responsible for the breach of investment contract by state-owned enterprises. In order to answer this question, two elements, which are (i) attribution of conduct to the host state, and (ii) breach of an international obligation, should be analyzed. Also, regarding the execution of arbitral awards, the question arises whether the properties owned by state-owned enterprises could enjoy immunity from execution when the investor intends to enforce an arbitral award against them, in case the award that was rendered against the host state is not executed voluntarily. Overall, it could be concluded that state-owned enterprises under municipal law might be considered as state organs under international law, and thus, it is possible for the host state to be a respondent state and be held internationally responsible for the act of its state-owned entities. Accordingly, it is required to look at the factors that are taken into account when examining the relationship between state-owned enterprises and the host states in each problems. The decisive factors include, in general, the ownership of corporation’s shares, the power to appoint members of the board of directors, and the control over corporation by approval of plans. In addition, when it has been established that the host state is responsible for the act of its state-owned enterprise, it could be understood that the close relationship between state-owned enterprise and the host state has already been recognized. And thus, it raises a question whether the host state might be able to argue at the enforcement stage that the state-owned entity exists separately from the state so that its assets cannot be equated with those of the host state. The host state might be able to make such argument as the threshold required for identifying the state-owned entity as the host state at the enforcement stage is higher than that required for establishing jurisdiction or state responsibility of the host state. Moreover, even if this argument is not accepted and as a result, the properties of the state-owned entity is equated with those of the host state, the host state might still be able to argue that noncommercial assets of the state-owned enterprise are immune from execution. Considering that investment arbitration claims are continuo

칼보주의에 대한 재고찰 ‒ 라틴아메리카를 중심으로 ‒

장석영(Chang, Sok Young) 국제법평론회 2019 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.54

The attitude of Latin American countries toward international investment arbitration has been skeptical nowadays and this phenomenon has been referred to as ‘revival’ or ‘resurgence’ of the Calvo Doctrine. The Calvo revival may be distinguished with the backlash against the current international investment regime, however, they are closely related to each other. Moreover, as this phenomenon in Latin America is leading the change in the field of international investment law, a close look at the development of Calvo Doctrine would be helpful to understand the ongoing discussion on the reform of the international investment regime. According to the analysis of the international treaties, contracts, and national laws of Latin American countries, it could be argued that the current phenomenon is not only a ‘revival’ but also a ‘rediscovery’ of the Calvo Doctrine as the Doctrine has existed in the legal instruments of some countries even after the 1990s. In addition, some Latin American states have proposed new draft articles of the bilateral investment treaties or revised their national laws by including new provisions that resemble the Calvo Clause in order to reduce the use of international investment arbitration. However, this trend cannot be understood as reflecting the Calvo Doctrine in its origin, but as demonstrating modified versions of the Doctrine since the Latin American countries are no longer only the capital importing countries but also the host states of the investors. Nevertheless, it is certain that the Calvo Doctrine has once again drew the world’s attention, and thus, examining the development of treaties and national laws in Latin American countries will be an important step to better understand the new trend in international investment arbitration.

국제투자법상 투자의 개념과 가상화폐의 지위

장석영(CHANG, Sok Young) 국제법평론회 2021 국제법평론 Vol.- No.59

The use of cryptocurrencies(virtual currencies) has exploded across the world in recent years, however, the term that refers to this new asset has not been settled yet. In addition, investment in cryptocurrencies has also been growing over the past years, and it raises the question whether cryptocurrencies could be protected under the international investment regime. In other words, it is questionable whether the investment in cryptocurrencies could be classified as “investment” under international investment law, and as investment disputes concerning investment in cryptocurrencies are likely to be raised soon, it is important to look at the definition of investment and the legal status of cryptocurrencies under the existing investment law. Thus, this article examines the characteristics of cryptocurrencies, and then analyzes the definition of investment under the investment treaties and arbitral awards. Several elements, including territorial link, that are controversial particularly in the case of cryptocurrencies are examined in order to find out whether the investment in cryptocurrencies itself might be fitted into the definition of investment. However, investment in cryptocurrency-related entities, institutions, or funds, which is similar to investment in foreign companies, is not addressed in this paper. Overall, it might not be able to give a definite answer to this question as the investment in cryptocurrencies can be made in various ways. Yet, it is likely that the investment in cryptocurrencies could be classified as investments under the international investment regime except in cases where the investors are only holding deposits of the cryptocurrencies in foreign cryptocurrency exchanges or financial institutions. Nevertheless, since the features of cryptocurrencies are constantly evolving, it is necessary to understand their features and the most important thing to consider would be how the relevant investment treaties define the term “investment”.

4차 산업혁명과 정지궤도 위성의 이용

장석영(Chang, Sok Young) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2021 東亞法學 Vol.- No.90

4차 산업혁명 시대에는 정지궤도 위성을 활용한 정보통신 사업, 위성항법 시스템을 통한 위치정보 제공이 매우 중요해질 것이다. 그러나 지구정지궤도는 국가들이 가장 선호하는 궤도이며, 정지궤도 위성을 운영하기 위해서는 지구정지궤도의 자리와 주파수를 확보해야 하지만, 이 두 가지는 모두 한정된 천연자원이며 이미 포화상태에 이르고 있다. 따라서 ITU에서 규율하고 있는 지구정지궤도 자리와 주파수의 할당 방식에 대해 잘 이해할 필요가 있다. 지구정지궤도 자리와 주파수의 할당 방식에는 선착순 방식과 사전 배분 방식이 있지만, 아직 대부분의 경우에 선착순 방식이 이용되고 있다. 선착순 방식에 따른 정지궤도 자리의 할당과 영구적이고 배타적 이용방식이 유지되는 한 궤도 자리는 계속해서 부족해질 수밖에 없으며, 이를 개선하기 위해서는 국가들의 합의가 이루어져야 할 것이다. 또한 한국의 경우 국제규범 변화 속도에 맞춰 우리나라의 최신 기술을 뒷받침할 수 있는 법률적인 검토가 지속적으로 이루어져야 할 것이다. As we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution, geostationary orbit satellites for satellite communication and navigation system has become more important than ever. To launch and operate geostationary satellites, the operator should apply for orbital slots, however, there are not many spaces left as the geostationary orbit remains the most preferred orbit by the operators. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the filing mechanism for geostationary orbital slots according to the ITU instruments. The main reasons for congested orbit are the allocation of orbital slots on a first-come, first-served basis and the indefinite use of allocated slots. Since the space industry, especially the satellite sector, is rapidly evolving, it is time to think about possible ways to improve the allocation system for equitable access of all countries to the geostationary orbit.

외국인 투자자 보호와 인권 보호 의무: 물에 대한 권리에 관한 국제투자분쟁 사례를 중심으로

장석영(Sok Young CHANG) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2022 법과기업연구 Vol.12 No.1

오늘날 인권으로서의 물에 대한 권리가 중요해지면서 상하수도 사업이 민영화된 국가에서 물에 대한 권리와 관련된 분쟁이 발생하는 경우를 많이 찾아볼 수 있다. 상하수도 사업에 해외 민간자본이 투입된 경우, 해당 투자유치국은 국제투자협정상 외국인 투자자의 보호 의무와 국제인권조약상 인권 보호 의무를 모두 부담하게 되는데, 인권을 보호하기 위한 투자유치국의 행위가 외국인 투자자의 권리를 침해하는 경우에 외국인 투자자와 투자유치국 간에 국제투자분쟁이 발생하는 것이다. 이 글에서는 상하수도 사업과 물에 대한 권리가 문제된 다수의 국제투자분쟁 사례를 살펴보았으며, 중재판정에서 인권 문제를 검토하지 않은 사례, 인권에 대해 언급은 하였지만 투자자 보호와 인권 보호의 관계에 대해서만 검토한 사례, 물에 대한 권리를 포괄적으로 검토한 사례로 분류하여 일련의 사례에서 시간의 흐름에 따른 중재판정의 변화를 살펴보았다. 이를 통해 중재판정부가 인권 보호에 관한 투자유치국의 주장을 검토하는 경우가 점차 늘어나고 있는 것을 확인할 수 있었으며, 이와 같은 변화가 국제투자법은 물론이고 국제인권법에도 많은 영향을 미치고 있다는 사실을 확인하였다. 앞으로 인권이 문제된 사건에서 투자유치국이 투자협정상의 의무 위반을 정당화하기 위해 인권 보호 의무를 주장하거나 기업의 의무 위반을 주장하는 반대청구를 제기하는 경우가 더욱 늘어날 것으로 보이며, 이와 같은 국제투자협정의 변화는 국제인권조약을 보완하는 역할을 할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. Since the right to water as human rights is becoming increasingly important, disputes concerning the human right to water have been a problem in many countries that privatized the water and sanitation services. Especially when the foreign private sector is involved in the water and sanitation system, international investment disputes may arise between the foreign investor and the host state as the latter bears both the duty to protect foreign investors under the international investment agreements and the duty to protect human rights under the international human rights treaties. This is especially the case when the measures adopted by the host state to protect human rights infringe on the rights of foreign investors. This article looked at some investment arbitration cases dealing with the right to water in the water and sanitation sector and classified the cases into three groups according to how much the arbitral tribunals analyzed the human rights issue. The three groups are the cases in which human rights issues were not considered, the cases that human rights were mentioned, but only the relationship between investor protection and human rights protection, and the cases in which the right to water was comprehensively examined. The analysis demonstrates that the number of investment arbitration cases that the arbitral tribunal examines the host state’s argument regarding the protection of human rights is increasing, and this suggests that such a change might have a great impact on international investment law as well as international human rights law. In particular, it is expected that the host state will increasingly file counterclaims in human rights-related investment disputes, and incorporate provisions imposing human rights obligations to investors or exception clauses in international investment agreements. In addition, the increasing number of human rights obligation provisions in international investment agreements might play a complementary role to international human rights treaties.

론스타 사건에 대한 실체적 및 절차적 쟁점 분석

장석영(Sok Young CHANG) 한국중재학회 2023 중재연구 Vol.33 No.1

론스타(Lone Star)가 한국을 상대로 국제투자중재를 신청한 지 약 10년만인 2022년 8월 31일 이 사건에 대한 중재판정이 나왔다. 2012년 제기된 론스타 사건은 한국을 상대로 처음 제기된 국제투자중재 사건이었으며, 미국계 사모펀드인 론스타가 외환은행을 인수했다가 이를 다시 하나금융에 매각하며 일명 ‘먹튀’ 논란을 불러일으킨 사건으로 다수의 드라마와 영화의 배경이 되기도 하였다. 이처럼 먹고 튀었다는 논란이 있었던 론스타에 한국이 미화 2억 1,650만 달러 및 이자를 배상해야 한다는 중재판정이 나오면서 론스타 사건은 다시 한번 논란의 대상이 되고 있다. 그동안 론스타 사건과 관련하여 다수의 연구가 진행되었지만, 기존 연구는 양측의 구체적인 주장과 법리 등이 공개되지 않은 상황에서 진행될 수밖에 없었다. 그러나 이번 중재판정 선고 이후 법무부는 중재판정문과 분쟁당사자 양측의 준비서면을 모두 공개하였으며, 이제 쟁점별로 양측의 입장과 중재판정의 내용을 충분히 확인할 수 있게 되었다. 따라서 이 글에서는 론스타 사건의 실체적 및 절차적 쟁점을 국제투자분쟁해결센터(International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, 이하 ‘ICSID’) 중재판정을 중심으로 살펴보려고 한다. 먼저, 론스타 사건의 배경과 국제투자분쟁의 해결방식을 간략하게 살펴본 후, 중재판정의 내용을 주요 쟁점별로 분석할 것이며, 쟁점마다 론스타 및 한국 양측이 주장한 내용은 무엇이었고 중재판정부는 어떤 결론을 내렸는지 살펴보고 이에 대해 검토할 것이다. 다음으로 론스타 사건의 진행과 관련하여 제기되는 절차적 쟁점에 대해 살펴볼 것이다. 론스타 사건의 실체적 및 절차적 내용을 주요 쟁점별로 정리하여 검토함으로써 오랜 기간 기다려왔던 론스타 사건에 대한 ICSID 중재판정의 내용을 세부 쟁점별로 잘 이해할 수 있을 것이며, 중재판정 이후 남은 절차와 현재 진행되고 있는 다른 사건들에 대한 대응방안을 생각해볼 수 있을 것이다. An ICSID award on Lone Star case has been rendered finally on August 31st, 2022 after almost ten years since the Lone Star Funds submitted the request for arbitration against the Republic of Korea in 2012. The Lone Star case is the first investor-state dispute settlement(ISDS) case brought against Korea, and this case, also known as “eat and run” case, has given rise to heated debates for years. Moreover, as the ICSID tribunal has ordered Korea to pay the Lone Star Funds the sum of USD 216.5 million plus interest in the award, this case has become once again the subject of controversy. Any arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in dispute have not been disclosed until recently, however, as the memorials and the award are now open to the public, it has become possible to realize the assertions of each party and the decisions of the tribunal in detail. Therefore, this paper aims at analyzing the main issues of the Lone Star case with a focus on the ICSID award. By examining the substantive and procedural issues of the case one after the other, it might be able to understand the whole picture of the case and prepare for the remaining procedures of this case and other upcoming cases as well.

국제사회의 유엔 북한인권 조사위원회(COI) 권고이행과 전망

조정현 ( Jung Hyun Cho ),장석영 ( Sok Young Chang ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.3

After almost a year-long investigation, the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on HumanRights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, established by the United NationsHuman Rights Council in March 2013, presented its final report in February 2014. TheCOI’s report provided a large volume of supporting materials and legal analysis, basedon which it concluded that a range of human rights violations perpetrated in NorthKorea constitute crimes against humanity under international criminal law. Crimesagainst humanity are one of the four international crimes under the jurisdiction of theInternational Criminal Court (ICC), and are directly linked to the principle of theresponsibility to protect (R2P). In addition, they could directly or indirectly affect thetransitional justice measures, which would be implemented once the Korean peninsulais united. In this regard, this paper first examines the activities of the UN COI on North Koreanhuman rights and the main findings and recommendations of the COI report. Then,overview of the related following activities of the UN Human Rights Council, GeneralAssembly and Security Council are provided. After that, the possibilities of the referral of the North Korean situation to the ICC by the UN Security Council and theestablishment of an ad hoc international or hybrid tribunal by whether Security Councilor General Assembly are reviewed in more detail. The issue of human rights in North Korea is unlikely to be resolved quickly due tonon-cooperation of North Korea and weaknesses of the international implementingmechanisms. Nonetheless, at a time when the international community including the UNas well as domestic and international NGOs has increased their attention on the gravityof the problem of North Korean human rights situation, the Korean government and theinternational community should together develop more concrete measures to bringdiverse but effective and coordinated ways to resolve the situation.