Earticle

Joy Mining 사건에서는 ICSID 협약상 투자의 의미, 계약청구와 조약 청구사이의 관계와 우산조항의 효력, 그리고 투자협정상 인정된 분쟁해결절차와 투자계약서상의 분쟁해결절차의 관계라는 쟁점이 다루어졌다. ICSID를 이용하기 위한 요건의 하나인 투자의 의미에 대해 이 사건에서는 소위 Salini 기준을 엄격하게 적용하여 이 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 하였다. 이 사건에서 적용한 Salini 기준은 여러 가지 면에서 다른 사건에서 적용한 기준과 다르기 때문에 선례로서의 가치는 약하다. 이러한 이유로 이 사건의 중재판정은 ICSID 협약상의 투자의 요건을 충족하지 못한다는 관할권 항변을 하는 국가들이 많이 원용되고 있다. 계약청구와 조약청구는 구별된다는 것은 확립된 판례라고 할 수 있는 법리를 이 사건에서 적용하면서 드물게 이 사건의 사안에서는 조약청구가 없다고 하였다. 우산조항이 계약위반을 조약위반으로 변경하는 효력의 범위에 대해서는 이 사건에서는 대규모 계약위반에 대해서만 이러한 효력이 인정된다고 하였다. 이 쟁점에 대해서는 판례가 전적으로 그 효력을 인정하는 것과 제한적으로만 인정하는 것으로 나뉜다. 그리고 제한적으로 인정하는 범위도 판례마다 적지 않은 차이를 보이는데 이 사건에서는 대규모 계약위반에 이 효력을 인정한 사례로 의미가 있다. 이 사건에서는 투자의 요건을 충족하지 못하므로 관할권이 없고, 조약청구가 없다고 하였으므로 계약상 분쟁해결기관과 투자협정상의 분쟁해결 기관사이의 관계라는 쟁점은 중요하게 다루어지지 않았다. 이와 같이 이사건은 현재에도 논란의 대상이 되고 있는 ICSID 협약상 투자의 의미와 우산조항의 의미에 대해 논란을 더한 사건으로 그로 인해 자국의 주장을 뒷받침하게 위해 많은 국가들이 원용하는 사건으로 기억할 만하다.

At Joy Mining case, 3 (more specifically 4) important procedural issues are decided. The first is the meaning of "investment" under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention. The decisions on that issue are inconsistent causing severe damage to the reliability of ICSID as investment dispute mechanism. The Tribunal at Joy Mining case rejected the existence of ICSID investment, applying exceptionally strict standard to the so-called "Salini-test". For this reason, it has been relied upon to support their argument denying jurisdiction of the ICSID. The second issue is the relationship between breach of investment contract and that of investment treaty. The Tribunal applied the precedent that they are distinct and the former can be transformed into the latter with colorable argument on the breach of some provisions of investment treaty concerned. With the application of these rules, the Tribunal decided that as such argument was provided by the claimant, there was no treaty claim in Joy Mining case. The third issue (or the sub issue of the 2nd) is the effect of the so-called umbrella clause on the elevating the breach of investment contract to that of investment treaty. The issue is also a subject of hot controversy in arbitral decisions and scholastic opinion. The Tribunal in Joy Mining case granted restrictive effect, saying that it hhd such an effect under the mass breach of contract. The decision has little effect to calm down the controversy. The third main issue is the relationship between the dispute settlement body under investment contract and that under investment treaty. The issue, however, became moot, as the Tribunal had decided already that there were no ICSID investment (which means no ICSID jurisdiction) and no treaty claim which would be dealt with by ICSID, investment treaty dispute settlement body. For that reason this issue was briefly mentioned. In conclusion, Joy Mining case deserves to remember as a case of exceptionally strict standard of Salini test and that recognizing the effect of Umbrella Clause restricted to the mass breach of investment contract.

Government procurement accounts for 10% or more of GDP in most states, and practices in this area can operate as important barriers to trade. Thus it is not surprising that it has been a concern of multilateral regulators since at least the end of the Second World War, and that it is a subject of great interest for the WTO. The focus of this paper begs on the GPA between Korea vs. Australia/New Zealand and GCC FTA begs the questions of how to regulate GPA articles, reflecting divergences in their existing GPA provisions with other FTAs. The study begins with delineating conflicting issues of different thresholds with other countries or in central/local government, preferences in small/medium enterprise, and environmental procurement sector. It posits that some provisions regulating GPA of Korea vs. Australia/New Zealand and GCC FTA needs fitting out in the final drafts in both FTAs. The paper wraps up the suggestions on how the GPA between Korea vs. Australia/New Zealand and GCC FTAs in order to consider our positions reflecting the GPA of WTO.

WTO 회원국이 타방 회원국에 대하여 실시하는 상계관세 조사 과정에서 현지실사는 피조사 기업 및 정부 입장에서는 해당 조사를 성공적으로 방어 할 수 있는 지 여부를 가름할 결정적인 변수이다. 특히 상계관세 조사의 경우 수출국의 기업뿐 아니라 수출국 정부도 조사하게 되는 바, 정부에 대한 현지실사가 상계관세 조사의 최종결과에 적지 않은 영향을 미치게 된다. 현지실사에 상당한 경험과 기술을 축적한 기업과는 달리 정부의 경우 이러한 경험과 기술이 일천하기 때문이다. 최근 전개된 다양한 상계관세 조사를 토대로 살펴볼 경우 정부에 대한 현지실사는 다양한 실무적 문제를 제기한다. 이러한 실무적 문제에 대하여 어떻게 대비하느냐에 따라 상계관세 최종판정의 내용은 상당히 달라지게 된다는 점을 최근의 상계관세 조사 사례는 잘 보여주고 있다. 나아가 설사 최종판정에서 어떠한 결과가 도출되더라도 추후 그러한 최종판정에 대한 사법 심사 내지 WTO 분쟁해결절차 회부를 위해서는 현지실사에 대한 철저한 대비와 주도면밀한 진행이 필요하다. 물론 현지실사 준비 및 진행과 관련한 모든 현실적 장벽을 단기간에 극복 할 수는 없을 것이나 일부 사항에 대해서는 현재 여건하에서도 얼마든지 개선책을 강구할 수 있다. 가령, 상계관세 현지실사의 의미를 정확히 알고 외국 조사당국이 우리 정부에 대하여 요청할 수 있는 것과 요청할 수 없는 것의 한계를 정확히 파악하고 있는 경우 우리 정부 담당자 입장에서는 훨씬 효과적으로 현지실사에 참여할 수 있을 것이다. 또한 외국 조사당국의 조사에 대하여 기본적으로 협조하며, 문제가 있는 사항에 대해서는 적극적인 설명을 제공하는 것 역시 현재 여건하에서도 현지실사를 가급적 우리에게 유리하게 이끌어갈 수 있는 개선책 중 하나이다. 또한 자료제출이 불가할 경우에도 그 사유를 우리 국내법적 제한 근거를 나열하며 상세히 소명하는 것 역시 해당 상계관세 조사의 성공적 방어와 추후 WTO 제소를 위해서도 지극히 중요하다. 이와 같이 현재의 상황에서도 충분히 개선책을 마련할 수 있는 영역부터 조금씩 실무적인 문제점을 해결하여 나가고 또 구조적인 문제에 대해서도 장기적인 해결방안을 마련하여 나가는 것이 상계관세 조사 과정에서 우리의 이해관계가 정확하게 반영될 수 있도록 보장하는 지름길일 것이다.

On-site verification is a crucial juncture for any countervailing duty investigation. The final outcome of any countervailing duty investigation and the possibility of success in subsequent judicial review or WTO challenge are pretty much dependant upon how the on-site verification is prepared and proceeded. At the same time, on-site verification in a countervailing duty investigation is more difficult than the one in an anti-dumping investigation because the former involves verification for the government as well. Unlike the exporting companies, which usually possess the expertise and resources to thoroughly prepare verification with the full support of private attorneys as the companies' future is on the line, government officials do not have such expertise or resources. Recent verifications conducted against the Korean government in recent countervailing duty investigations by other WTO Members have brought this problem to our attention. There are a couple of suggestions that may help the government successfully prepare itself for verification and defend itself during verification. For instance, government officials should more actively participate in verifications and respond to questions and comments from the investigators of the investigating authorities from other WTO Members in a more aggressive manner. Passive reactions and non-response have usually led the Korean government in a more delicate situation afterwards. In addition, when provision of an answer or information is not feasible because of legal restriction or practical constraints, the government officials should clearly explain the relevant situation to the investigators. Also, any conversation and documents provided during verification constitute key elements in the final countervailing duty determination and also following judicial review and WTO challenges. Therefore, the government officials should make sure that the verification report and exhibits are accurately recorded and finalized. These efforts will ensure that the Korean government and Korean companies will not become an inadvertent victim of dubious countervailing duty investigations by other trading partners.

세계화(Globalization)로 인한 국가간 교류의 확대와 수입식품의 증가는 식품안전에 대한 우려 및 중요성을 증대시키고 있다. 본고는 식품안전 분야 주요 분쟁사례의 분석, 국내·외 SPS정책, 개선점 및 향후 SPS정책방향을 제시하고자 한다. Hormone Case, 생명공학제품 Case, 캐나다산쇠고기 수입제한조치 Case에서 핵심쟁점은 ‘문제의 SPS조치가 WTO/SPS협정상 적절한 위해성평가(risk assessment)에 근거하였는지 여부에 관한것이다. 위해성관리에 있어서 적절한 수준의 위생․검역수준 확보문제는 결국 개별국가에 의해 결정된다. 국내․외 SPS조치간 조화정책추구를 통한국내외․,SPS정책의 일관성유지 및 확보는 SPS 국내․외법의 실효성을높일 뿐 아니라 원활한 국제무역을 위해서도 꼭 필요하다. 또한 식품안전 분야 SPS정책은 소비자가 인식하는 안전개념을 반영하여야 한다. 우리나라 향후 식품안전분야 SPS정책방향은 소비자건강보호와 식품, 농산품무역의 지속가능성 확보라는 상충되어 보이는 두가지 중요한 정책간의 균형감각을 적절히 유지하는 방법으로 나아가야 한다. 식품안전분야 SPS정책수립에 있어서 무엇보다도 중요한 것은 먼저 소비자중심의 식품관리체계가 이루어져야 한다. 나아가 동․식물보호를 위한 SPS규제와는 차별화된 통합적이고 일원화된 SPS정책을 수립하고 개발할 때 ‘소비자건강보호’라는 SPS분야 최고의 정책목표를 지속가능한 무역확보라는 또 다른 정책목표를 희생함이 없이 실현할 수 있으리라 굳게 믿는다.

The increase of imported food and expansion of contacts between nations has highlighted on concerns and importance of food safety in South Korea. This article addresses analysis on representative WTO dispute settlement cases, SPS policies in the food safety arena at the national and international level and food safety policy prospective in South Korea respectively. The key issue of WTO SPS dispute settlement cases such as Hormone case, Biotech case, and Canana Beef case is whether SPS measure at issue is based on risk assessment with scientific justification. How to secure the appropriate level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection(hereafter "ALOP") in the risk management ultimately relies on individual nation. The maintenance and securement of consistency between int'l and national SPS policies is very necessary to make SPS related law and regulations at the national and int'l level effective and to sustain active int'l transaction. Further, SPS policy in the food safety arena shall reflect the concept of 'safety' that consumers perceive. SPS policy prospective in South Korea shall proceed to pursue appropriate balance between the protection of consumer's health and the sustainable trade of food and agricultural products. The most critical things in the food safety policy is to introduce consumer-oriented food management system first of all. And then, a way to set up a united and centralized food safety policy differentiated from SPS policy of animal and plant protection is, I firmly believe, to achieve the protection of consumer's health, uppermost SPS policy goal without sacrificing other SPS policy goal, the securement of sustainable int' l trade.

WTO는 세계 자유무역의 진전에 상당한 기여를 하였다. 하지만 WTO 분쟁해결제도는 국제무역질서를 지탱할 수 있는 법적 안정성과 예측 가능성이라는 중요한 요소를 제공하고 있음에도 불구하고 분쟁해결제도의 운용에있어 한계점을 보이고 있다. WTO 분쟁해결의 주된 목적은 분쟁국 간의원만한 해결을 유도하고, 신속하고 공정한 무역이다. 따라서 WTO 분쟁해결제도의 절차적인 측면에 있어 지금보다 좀 더 구체적이고 명확한 규정을 가져야 할 것이다. 특히 본 논문에서 살펴본 합리적 이행기간에 있어 우선통상적인 가이드라인 만을 제시하는 것이 아닌, 특정한 합리적 이행기간을 명확히 제시할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 이러한 합리적 이행기간은 각 해당 사건의 특별한 상황을 고려하여 정해져야 할 것이다. 셋째, 개도국의 특수한 국내 상황을 고려한 개도국에 대한 실효성 있는 예외규정을 두어야 할 것이다. 결론적으로 합리적 이행기간의 확정은 단순한 수학적 계산으로 나오는 결과가 아니다. 따라서 합리적 기간의 정확성은 전체적인 의무 이행 과정에서 평가되어야 할 것이다.

WTO has contributed much to world free trade. But WTO Dispute Settlement System appears breaking point in the application of the Dispute Settlement System for all provide legal safety and forecast possibility for international trade order. WTO Dispute Settlement's main purpose is for fair trade. Thus, WTO Dispute Settlement System should have technical details. First, We need a definite standard about the resonable period of time. Second, The reasonable period of time should be decided after considering the particular circumstance in each case. Third, there need to have an exceptional clause considering particular circumstance in developing countries.

본 연구는 우리나라의 콘텐츠 분야 주력 수출 산업 중 하나인 온라인게임 산업의 대 중국 교역에서 제기될 수 있는 중국법제도의 문제점을 파악하고, 이를 일반적인 WTO 법규범과의 일치성 검토를 통해 향후 우리나라가 중국과 FTA를 추진하는데 갖는 시사점이 무엇인가를 밝히고자 하였다. 동 연구를 통해 현재의 중국법제도는 그 자체로서 온라인게임을 직접규율 하는 법은 없으나 다양한 관련 규범들을 통해 간접적으로 이를 규제하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 중국의 법제도에서 가장 큰 문제점은 온라인게임 시장 자체에 대하여 중국이 <외상투자산업지도목록>을 통해 시장접근을 제한하고 있다는 점이며, 다양한 법규에서 투명성의 문제, 수량제한의 문제 및 내국민대우 위반의 문제 등이 제기되었다. 또한 법적차별이 아닌 ‘사실상의 차별’에 해당하는 중국 정부의 관행 또한 심각한 문제점으로 지적되고 있다. 결국 동 연구를 통해 살펴본 중국의 온라인게임에 대한 규제는 WTO법에 위반되는 것으로 이는 향후 양국간의 FTA 체결 논의와 맞물려 우리나라 정부와 기업들에게 시사하는 바가 크다고 할수 있다.

This article mainly focused on a number of Chinese Laws intended for regulating Online Games which were one of the top exporting items for trade in contents in Korea. The purpose of this article is firstly to find the problems of Chinese law related to online games, secondly to evaluate a consistency of the laws and the WTO rules, and finally to suggest some issues for upcoming Korea‐Chinese FTA negotiation. We find that there’re not a single law and/or rule for directly regulate online game itself in China, but a lot of other rules and laws related to trade in online games and to regulate them very strictly. The first and important issue brought by the Chinese law regulated trade in online games is not to access the Chinese market by “Catalogue of ndustries for Guiding Foreign Investment (2007).” And more, there’re some minor but also important issues such as ‘transparency’, ‘quantitive restriction’, ‘national treatment violation’, and even more ‘de facto discrimination’ on the foreign companies. This means these issues have an important role in Korea‐China FTA negotiation, and finally we suggest the sooner we prepare it, the better we get a good result.

Burden of proof pertains to legal issues in the disputes, thus the parties can not come to a decision with respect to the bearing party. It is essential subject matter in the domestic and international legal systems. The significance of burden of proof came from its concept that tells us which party (complainant or defendant) in a case must provide proof of a determinate issue at the risk of having the adjudicator rule against it with respect to that issue. The issue of the burden of proof in domestic legal systems is affirmatively stilled. Nonetheless, in the international law still unresolved issue, i.e. the judicial bodies in the international law enjoy the extreme freedom to appoint what is admissible as evidence and also which party bears the burden of proof. WTO dispute settlement bodies toke the position of the international tribunal. Consequently, the Appellate Body and the panel can appoint the bearing party of the burden of proof. In the WTO disputes the Appellate Body stated specific doctrine in order to allocate the burden of proof among the disputing parties. The burden of proof in safeguard measure disputes is inconsistent with the established doctrine in the WTO disputes generally. Moreover, the allocation of burden of proof in GATT panel practices regarding the safeguard measures disputes differs from the recent one under the WTO regime. The characteristics of safeguard measures require special allocation of burden of proof, i.e. the claimant has several difficulties to prove his claim since the data and confidential information in the possession of the seeking party (respondent). The standard of proof in the safeguard measures disputes varies from case to case which constitutes an instability that threats the reliability and predictability of safeguard measures in WTO.

상품무역에 관한 분쟁이 발생했을 때 가장 중요한 쟁점 중의 하나는 바로 상품의 동종성(likeness)에 관한 문제이다. 지금까지의 WTO 판정례를 살펴본다면, 일견(prima facie) 차별대우를 받았다고 생각될지라도 문제가 되는 상품 간의 동종성(likeness)이 없는 것으로 밝혀질 경우 이는 차별(discrimination)이 아니라 차등(differentiation)이기 때문에 WTO협정의 위반이 아닌 것으로 간주되기 때문이다. 그러나 GATS에서는 상품무역에 관한 분쟁에서 적용되었던 논리가 그대로 적용된다고 말하기 어렵다. 특히 서비스(service)의 본질적인 특성 및 이로 인해 파생되는 특성을 고려해볼 때, 상품무역에서 통용되었던 논리를 그대로 적용시킬 수 없기 때문이다. 점증하는 서비스무역과 그에 따라 관련 분쟁이 증가할 것으로 예상되는 바, 서비스무역에 있어서 동종성 판단 기준에 관한 문제는 더 이상 미룰 수 없는, 앞으로 계속 살펴보아야 할 화제로 보인다. 본 사항에 있어서 완벽한 판단 기준을 세우기란 불가능하다. 서비스 무역이 가지는 본질적인 특성상 GATT 상의 BTA방식 자체는 서비스 및 서비스 공급자의 동종성 판단 기준으로서 적합하지 않다. 다만 서비스의 본질적 특성을 고려하여, 변형된 BTA방식, 즉 ‘물리적’ 특성 대신에 서비스의 ‘내재적’ 특성, 관세분류 대신에 불완전하게나마 적용할 수 있는 UNC PC, 그리고 서비스에 대한 소비자들의 인식 및 습관, 최종용도 등을 고려한다면, 서비스의 동종성을 판단하는 데 있어 여전히 효과적인 방식 중의 하나가 될 수 있다. 특히 소비자들의 인식 및 습관, 최종용도는 비중을 두 어서 검토해야 할 요소라고 본다. 다만 더 정교한 동종성검토를 위해서는무엇이 ‘내재적’이고 ‘내재’인 특성은 무슨 방법으로 밝혀내야 하는지, 그리고 UNCPC의 불완전성을 어떻게 보완해 나가는 것인지 등의 숙제가 존재한다.

This Article has the purpose to study "likeness" in General Agreem ent on Trade in Services because it is one of primary issues when pane l or appellate body of WTO examines the dispute concerning services. Although this issue is important and so is thought to be clarified, Mem bers of WTO have not had less attention to it and have suggested that this thorny question be examined by DSB. In examining "likeness" of product, DSB have adopted two approach es: BTA approach and Aim and Effect approach. However, these metho ds cannot be considered in the dispute concerning services due to the fundamental characteristics of services. Thus, panel or appellate body which managed the dispute had no choice but to take an ambiguous position. For example, panel in EC-Banana Ⅲ stated that to the extent that entities provide these like services, they are like service suppliers. In this situation, it is necessary to adopt alternatives to decide "likeness" in services trade system. Frankly speaking, it is impossible to settle precise or strict standards in reviewing "likeness" in services trade system. However, it might be considered to establish "transformed" BTA approach given the several characteristics of services; internal features of services themselves, UNC PC and habits or tastes of customers are major elements to decide whether services and services suppliers are like or unlike. Aim and Effect theory, which has been rarely used, cannot be one of standards examining "likeness" due to same reasons which had been mentioned by DSB. "Transformed" BTA approach is certainly imperfect one, but it might be akind of threshold to pave the way for reaching transparent and fair dispute settlement.

1994년 WTO 반덤핑협정이 체결된 이래 반덤핑조치는 WTO 회원국들이 불공정무역을 구제하기 위하여 가장 빈번하게 사용하는 제도로 자리잡아왔다. 그럼에도 불구하고 규정 자체가 모호하거나 세부적인 규정의 흠결로 인하여 회원국의 자의적인 해석과 오·남용이 지속되고 있다는 비판을 받아왔다. 이를 근본적으로 해결하기 위한 협정개정 논의가 계속된 끝에반덤핑협정이 포함된 규범(rules) 분야는 2001년 11월 30일 도하각료선언에 따라 농업, NAMA(비농산물 시장접근), 서비스와 함께 DDA 협상의 주요의제 중 하나로 채택되었다. 규범 분야는 다시 반덤핑, 보조금(수산 보조금포함), 지역무역협정 등 세 가지 협정을 개정하는 것을 목표로 정하였다. 2002년 협상 개시 이후 2007년 11월 30일 규범협상그룹 의장이 작성한초안이 발표되었다. 2007년 초안은 그동안 규범협상그룹에서 논의된 주요국의 입장을 반영하였으나, 다른 협상그룹 초안과는 달리 괄호(bracket)나 옵션(option) 없이 단일문안으로 작성되었고 회원국 입장이 반영된 분야와 그 정도에 있어서 의장의 자의적인 결정이 문제시되는 등 배포 이후 적지않은 논란과 반발을 초래하였다. 2007년 초안이 규범협상을 순조롭게 이끌 것이라는 기대가 무색할 정도로 이에 대한 반발이 심해지자 2008년 12월19일 의장은 2007년 초안에 있어서 논란이 되었던 내용의 상당 부을 철회한 새로운 의장초안을 발행하여 오늘에 이르고 있다. 2008년 초안에서 철회된 주요 쟁점은 제로잉, 인과관계, 국내산업 확립의 실질적 지연, 국내산업의 정의, 조사대상물품, 관계사 보유정보 요청, 최소부과원칙 및 공공이익, 우회덤핑, 일몰 등으로 주로 반덤핑 Friends 그룹과 미국의 입장이 첨예하게 대립하고 있는 쟁점들이다. 2008년 초안은 2007년 초안에서 제안된 반자유무역적인 제안을 철회했다는 점에서는 긍정적인 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 미소마진, 미소수입, 조사적격 기준 강화 등 그동안 Friends 그룹이 지속적으로 제기한 쟁점에 대해서는 아무런 의견도 제시되고 있지 않은 점이 아쉬움으로 남는다.

Anti-dumping measures have been used more frequently than any other trade remedies since 1994. However, it has been also encountered criticism for its misuse and abuse. The WTO Members agreed at the Doha Ministerial Conference to launch negotiations in the area of WTO Rules in 2001. These negotiations relate to the Anti-dumping Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (including fisheries subsidies), and WTO provisions applying to regional trade agreements. The chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules circulated to members his draft consolidated texts on anti-dumping on November 30, 2007. As the 2007 Draft was a single text without any bracket or option which reflected various proposals and positions, it has engendered a lot of controversy. The Chair circulated new negotiating texts on December 19, 2008. The 2008 Draft is based on a new, bottom-up approach, that is, draft legal language is provided only in those areas where ome degree of convergence appears to exist. While in other areas, the issues are identified and a brief summary of the range of views expressed is set forth, in brackets. The 2008 Draft revoked most controversial issues from the 2007 Draft, such as zeroing, causation, material retardation of the establishment of a domestic industry, determination of the domestic industry, product under consideration, requested information from the affiliated party, lesser duty rule, anti-circumvention, and sunset. Otherwise, other issues, such as de minimis margin, de minimis imports, and standing requirements were not dealt with in the 2008 Draft.

As trade between states increase, disputes concerning international trade are apt to take place. Arbitration is often acknowledged as a resolution to these problems. If arbitration were to be effectively used as a valid method in settling disputes, the award given by the arbitration tribunal should actually be recognized and enforced especially in cases of foreign arbitral awards where the state's own public power has not yet recognized its effect. Hence, most states have become the member of "The United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards," the New York Convention in short. While the New York Convention refers to commercial disputes, most states regulate in their Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT) that disputes relating investment should be resolved through the ICSID Convention. Thus, this thesis first focuses on ICSID arbitration and afterwards examines the New York Convention and lastly concentrates on the actual procedure of the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. When disputes occur during the application of investment treaties, one of the parties is apt to be a state or state organ. In such cases, if the disputes were to go to trial or arbitration, it is natural for the private investor to be concerned on whether a fair judgment would take place within the host state. Thus, ICSID arbitration serves as a neutral international arbitration organization within the World Bank (IBRD). ICSID arbitration is mainly discussed in chapters 2 to 4. Korea is also a member of the New York Convention. The ICSID Convention is particular in that it only applies to investment conflicts between states and foreign private parties. However, it can be categorized as foreign arbitration under the New York Convention, which means that theoretically, both the ICSID Convention and New York Convention can be applied in ICSID arbitral awards. However, the ICSID Convention regulates a more simple procedure regarding recognition and enforcement, so in most cases the chances that the New York Convention would apply in ICSID arbitral awards are rare. Therefore, the ICSID Convention generally applies only in ICSID arbitrations, whereas the New York Convention applies in other commercial arbitrations. This paper focuses on the study of the New York Convention in chapters 5 and 6. Chapters 7 and 8 examines the actual enforcement procedure as well as the annulment of arbitral awards. The conclusion is discussed in chapter 9.

his paper examines the harmonization, equivalence and transparency provision of the WTO SPS Agreement. With the economic development, people now concern more on the well-being of one's life. The WTO SPS Agreement covers the measures on sanitary which is directly related to the health of human, animals and plants. Once the issue related to the SPS measures is raised, it can generate public fear of the health safety as we have experienced from the chaos caused by Korea-US Beef Protocol. Due to the nature of the SPS measure, its relation to the human's life, preventing the future dispute is more crucial to the dispute settlement. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the WTO SPS Agreement and measures in relation, and try to prevent dispute in advance. The provisions on the harmonization, equivalence and transparency are not the most frequent provisions that are referred on the dispute but carry great importance for the mplementation of the Agreement. The SPS Committee has adopted Decisions on the provisions mentioned above. It has adopted the Procedure to Monitor the Process of the International Harmonization (Article 3), Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7). This paper examines the WTO Dispute cases that were raised in relation to the three provisions, mostly on the Article 3. In addition, it further analyzes the Decisions and two Reviews on the implementation of the SPS Agreement by the SPS Committee, in order to understand ongoing discussion of the provisions and further seek the aspects that need to be worked on. By understanding and implementing the SPS Agreement provisions on the harmonization, equivalence and transparency, countries can trust on the SPS measures of other Members, which will help prevent disputes and promote trade. Furthermore, The government's effort to inform the public of the SPS Agreement and SPS measures of other Members would help raise the condition of the people's health in the future.

The purpose of this study is to consider parallel imports permitted in Korea and examine judicial precedents in Korea and other foreign countries so that the problems of parallel imports will be anticipated and solutions will also be foreseen. Parallel imports, which are sometimes referred to as "grey market" imports, refer to goods that have been placed into circulation in a first market by or with the permission of the patent's holders, and then imported into a second market without the permission of the holder of such rights. The ability of the holder or licensee of intellectual property rights in that second market to prevent importation depends on the way "exhaustion" of rights are treated in that second market. Parallel imports arise in response to the possibility of profitable arbitrage; where there is a sufficient difference in the price of a product in two markets to justify a third party (the arbitrageur) procuring the product in a first market, transporting and selling it in the second market. Parallel imports are stimulated by this profit potential, and are not likely to occur in the absence of that profit potential. One of the direct causes of parallel imports is price difference. Profits of Intellectual Property rights holders are opposed to those of Parallel Importers'. Because of this confrontation of each profit there might be a problem. Infringements of Intellectual Property rights could occur. This problem has been on the increase for several decades, and has many factors contributing to it. Although there is the source of the problem, our law does not offer an inconsistent standard. Flaws of law should be revised. Customs Law is one of the representative laws that rules parallel imports in Korea. Though it offers standards of parallel imports, the standards which are stated in Customs Law are not explicit. It does not indicate clear standards whether parallel imports are permitted in fields of Trademark Law, Patent Law and Copyright Law. Antitrust Law also regulates that parallel imports should not be restricted without good reason to make a fair competitive market. However, still, Antitrust Law does not state exact standards and it only mentions rules about trademark goods. Problems with regards to parallel imports have been handled as conflicts of property versus property. However, it turns out that the problems about parallel imports are conflicts of property versus human rights because of the circumstance that people of the world's poorest nations could not afford to purchase bffoded drugs which are expensive for them. WTO member governments adopted the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health ntsconsensus at the WTO’s Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001. Its purpose is to respond to the concerns that have been expressed that the TRIPS Agreement might make some drugs difficult to obtain for patients in poor countries. To complement the problems of parallel imports, I recommend to organize an association of parallel importers to give customers good after-sales services and prevent distribution of inferior goods.

In accordance with REGULATION (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (hereinafter referred to as REACH Regulation) has entered into force from June 2007, pre-registration was enforced since June 2008. REACH Regulation is consolidated control law of chemicals which stipulates that all chemicals produced or imported over 1 ton a year in EU shall be registered, evaluated, permitted or restricted, depending on the quantity of production, importation or hazard. REACH Regulation aim for a high level of protection of human health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation(REACH Regulation Art.1.1.) and this regulation shall apply to the manufacture, placing on the market or use of such substances on their own, in preparations or in articles(Art.1.2.). As the most advanced regulation related to chemicals that protects human heath and environment at the higher level through consolidated control of chemicals, forms safe distribution system of chemicals in long term and provides the opportunity to enhance competitiveness through environment-friendly management, REACH Regulation will be good example for law related to chemicals to be enacted by other countries later. However, REACH Regulation also has potential to be the representative environmental regulation that plays the role of protective trade. To check whether REACH Regulation based on precautionary principle may be consistent with the WTO Agreements, it is required to check which treaty is applicable to REACH Regulation first and to judge whether REACH Regulation is in accordance with the obligations of the relevant treaty. It is considered that TBT Agreement is applicable, because the parts related to registration and declaration among REACH Regulation pertains to 'technical regulation' in TBT Agreement and those related to evaluation, permission and restriction pertains to 'conformity assessment procedures'. Further, the parts related to substances used for food and feedingstuffs may be subject to SPS Agreement. In addition, it is questionable whether GATT Agreement is applicable or not. It seems that there is no need to apply GATT Agreement separately, because TBT Agreement and SPS Agreement are applied before GATT Agreement on the basis of 'principle of priority of special law' and TBT Agreement includes relevant regulation of GATT Agreement and sanitary or phytosanitary measure shall be presumed to comform to the provisions of GATT Agreement, in particular the provisions of Article XX(b) if it agrees with SPS Agreement in Article 2 Section 4. With respect to TBT Agreement, the Article 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 of TBT Agreement may be questionable and REACH Regulation may violate the Article 2.1, 2.2 and 5.2.1 among them. With respect to SPS Agreement, the Article 2.2 and 5.1 of SPS Agreement may be questionable. Since 'restrictive measure' of Part 3 of REACH Regulation is to be enforced from June 2009 and 'risk assessment' itself does not exist as no report that may be the ground of 'restrictive measure' is yet released, the specific judgment on this matter would be reserved, just commenting that 'restrictive measure' should be based on 'risk assessment' later. Like EC-Asbestos judgment, WTO pursues the progressive harmony of 'trade' and 'environment.' For the future of next generation, we are responsible for protecting 'human heath and environment' from risk that will be uncontrollable later such as risk caused by chemicals. However, ‘free trade’ and ‘fair trade’ supposed to be achieved by WTO System shall not be waived and environmental regulation shall not be degraded into means of protective trade.