WTO 분쟁해결제도와 한미통상마찰 = "Korea-America commercial frictions and WTO's dispute settlement system"

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study attempts to mainly investigate the possibility of resolutions of the Korea-America commercial frictions through the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body(DSB). In order to archive this goal, I checked WTO's dispute settlement system and clarify the differences between GATT and WTO. At the same time, I examined the position and present condition of WTO's DSB. And I tried to investigate case studies. Through these analysis, the results of this study are as follows:
The former GATT had a few defects as a commercial dispute settlement organization. But WTO has developed more transparent, predictable and stable dispute settlement system than the GATT. The characteristics of WTO's DSB are summarized as below: First, uniform dispute settlement system. Second, principle of DSU(Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Dispute) preemption. Third, the prohibition of unilateral judgement and enforcement. Fourth, reverse consensus system. Finally, time-limited dispute settlement procedures. Therefore, because of these characters of WTO's DSB, many courntries frequently used WTO's dispute settlement system than earlier GATT. So the possibilities that can be resolved the commercial pending problems between Korea-America by the WTO's DSB are increased steadily. In this connection, we have always maintained defensive position in commercial negotiations between two countries. As stated in earlier food case study, the existence of WTO's dispute settlement system enhanced to a certain degree our bargaining power. Moreover, America is the first country that was lost a case at the WTO's DSB. From these points of view, we can know that WTO is taking its place as a stage of commercial dispute settlement between the two countries.
It has always worked upon the power in commercial negotiation between countries. And America has such a power. It is proved clearly through the case of America-Japan auto negotiation in 1995 and America-China intellectual property rights negotiation in 1996. But we don't have such a power relatively. So we were in a defensive position when America called for market opening or we negotiated with America on commercial pending problems. But WTO has an effect to restrict the unilateral and unfair use of power by the powerful nations like America. And an example proving that facts is already found in many cases. Although WTO mechanism has a limit itself, we must have an idea to use a WTO's dispute settlement system actively. Accordingly we need to improve a commercial organization into single and uniform one.
In conclusion, I think that the advent of WTO's DSB gives a measure to cope with the unfair commercial pressure of the powerful nations, America, to us having a weak bargaining power relatively. So we will have to analyze completely that what it is, how it work, and how we use. At the same time, we will also have to improve our laws and systems concerning international trade and unify our commercial organization.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 서론
• II. WTO 분쟁해결제도 개관
• III. 통상마찰 사례분석
• IV. 한미통상마찰과 WTO분쟁해결 절차의 이용 가능성
• V. 결론