LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"知识产权国际投资仲裁中的公共政策考量 (Public Policy Considerations in Intellectual Property-Related International Investment Arbitration)","authors":"Simon Klopschinski","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3874771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3874771","url":null,"abstract":"Chinese Abstract: 在国际投资仲裁案件菲利普·莫里斯烟草公司（Philip Morris）诉乌拉圭案中，仲裁庭驳回了菲莫关于乌拉圭的反吸烟立法侵占了烟草公司商标的主张。仲裁庭在裁判说理中，大体上遵从了乌拉圭为减少烟草公司的经营活动以增强公共卫生的政策决定。菲利普·莫里斯诉乌拉圭案提出了这样一个问题，即除了公共卫生之外，法庭还应考虑其他一些公共政策考虑因素，例如促进外国投资和保护知识产权。本文探讨了“公共政策”的概念，以及与知识产权相关的投资仲裁法律制度也即知识产权法、世界贸易组织法以及国际投资法是如何处理公共政策方面的问题的。本文还回顾了与知识产权相关的投资仲裁案件例如菲利普-莫里斯诉乌拉圭（Philip Morris v. Uruguay）、礼来公司诉加拿大（Eli Lilly v. Canada）以及普利司通诉巴拿马（Bridgestone v. Panama）案件之中的公共政策考量。 \u0000 \u0000English Abstract: In the investment arbitration Philip Morris v. Uruguay the arbitral tribunal rejected Philip Morris’ claim that Uruguay’s anti-smoking legislation expropriated the tobacco company’s trademarks. In its reasoning, the tribunal largely deferred to Uruguay’s policy decision to curtail tobacco companies’ business operations for the purpose of enhancing public health. Philip Morris v. Uruguay raises the question of whether there are, apart from public health, other public policy considerations which the tribunal should have given more weight to, e.g. the promotion of foreign investment and the protection of intellectual property (IP). The chapter explores the concept of ‘public policy’ and how IP law, WTO law and international investment law, i.e. the legal regimes relevant to IP-related investment arbitration, deal with public policy considerations. The chapter also reviews the handling of public policy considerations in the IP-related investment arbitrations Philip Morris v. Uruguay and Eli Lilly v. Canada, as well as Bridgestone v. Panama.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"272 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115887839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Data Protection Law in Investment Arbitration: Applicable or Not?","authors":"J. Huang, Dan-dan Xie","doi":"10.1093/ARBINT/AIAA031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ARBINT/AIAA031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Two recent cases, Tennant Energy v Canada and Elliott Associates v Korea, demonstrate an emerging yet unresolved applicable law issue in investment arbitration: whether a local personal data protection law should be applied in the absence of parties’ choice. This articlexplores this issue from three different dimensions: (i) the relevant law applicable to an arbitration (eg treaties and arbitration rules); (ii) the connecting factors between an arbitration and local data protection law; and (iii) the immunities or privileges, if any, under public international law. It proposes that the connecting factors between an arbitration and a local personal data protection law should be considered with the privileges and immunities under public international law. This proposed approach can provide predictability and certainty to the applicable law. Importantly, it can also protect the integrity and impartiality of an investment arbitration from the impacts of local laws.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"29 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113973296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Political Shadows in the USA - China Trade Dispute","authors":"Vasil Gechev","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3758750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3758750","url":null,"abstract":"The start of the USA – China trade dispute was given on July 6, 2018 – when the United States introduced an additional 25% ad valorem duty on $34 billion of Chinese imports. The official reasons, mentioned in a Statement by the President, were to prevent the unfair transfers of U.S. intellectual property and technology to China, and to restore the balance in the trade relationship between the two countries. Whether tariffs – a key instrument from the trade policy toolkit – can be used effectively against (alleged) intellectual property theft is debatable, and their deployment toward the reduction of the massive trade deficit with China ($375.2 billion in 2017) is only a country-specific solution. \u0000 \u0000Because of its relatively high labor costs, the U.S. does not have the comparative advantage to produce the vast majority of Chinese imports, and therefore the expected long-term effect of higher tariffs would be to reallocate parts of the trade deficit to other countries. The assumption that U.S. policymakers are unaware of this fact seems doubtful, and that brings us to the conjecture about the role of political considerations in the trade dispute. \u0000 \u0000This paper looks at both the economic and the political aspects of the dispute, as it examines the deficit’s dynamics over the last 20 years (incl. its impact on employment and household median income), plus the possible political influences: the Belt – and – Road initiative, the Chinese military build-up, and cyberespionage. The paper concludes with a short overview of the effect of U.S. tariffs on China’s GDP growth, exports, and trade balance.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128771349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating an International Investment Court for International Investment Disputes Under European Union’s Proposal","authors":"Ahmed Arafa Abdelrehim Hammad, Dexiang Guo","doi":"10.5539/jpl.v14n2p74","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v14n2p74","url":null,"abstract":"Berserk resentment of the existing framework regulating the international investment protection system and the operating of investment tribunals have direct to a prevalent perception that there is an immediate need for reform. This is especially pronounced having to do with Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), where there is an overall perception that it is not anything but an unfair and unbiased arbitration system available to decide disputes between states and foreign investors. Therefore, ISDS has been obtained a reputation for being non-transparent, one-sided, and contradictory in all decisions made by ISDS tribunals. The European Union (EU) has responded to this need, by proposing an international investment court; in this research, an attempt is making to look at this court, according to the European Union’s proposal. Moreover, the research explores the potential in creating this international investment court since a system can be drastically altered. However, some criticism can be addressed by international investment courts. However, specific steps can be taken to improve the international community’s investor-state dispute settlement system by re-valuating all the objectives and goals to solve international investment disputes.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132430787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Why States Should Have ISDS: The Private Sector Perspective","authors":"A. Franklin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3730834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730834","url":null,"abstract":"The system of International Investment Agreements and the Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions contained therein was developed primarily for the benefit of international investors; this was seen as a method of increasing the flow of foreign direct investment into developing nations which would benefit developing countries. <br><br>While the views of governments, international organizations and NGOs have been solicited and welcomed regarding changes to the system of IIAs and ISDS, the view of industry/investors has not been heard often. <br><br>This paper looks at the views of industry and investors on these topics; their views are quite opposite to those commonly put forward by the others. <br><br>One of the key elements is the perspective that sophisticated enterprises that care about sustainability issues such as human rights, environmentalism, corruption free operations, are well aware of the benefits that IIAs provide, particularly with the obligations of the state are enforceable through ISDS. These provide security to the enterprise to invest. Without them, they are less likely to invest in the state. Instead, exploitative capital will flow into the state. Exploitative capital does not have concerns regarding sustainability, human rights, corruption, environmental issues, as the only goal of exploitative capital is to make maximum profits as quickly as possible. <br><br>Investors are now aware that in the absence of ISDS provisions, there are no legal venues for an investor to have a claim adjudicated. Even with ISDS provisions in place, states will rarely settle claims prior to a final arbitration award. Yet, the movement towards replacing arbitration with mediation, thereby depriving the investor of any legally binding award is seen as exacerbating the problem of states not settling claims. With that system, they will have no motivation to settle via mediation since there is no potential for a binding award to be made against them if they refuse to settle via mediation. <br><br>Many of the fears expressed regarding investors misusing the ISDS provisions have been shown to be misguided, particularly now with processes in place to quickly stop clearly unmeritorious claims, as well as the cost of bringing such claims being so high.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129453374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Salini Criteria: A Strict-Deductive Approach Against the Principles of Article 25 ICSID","authors":"Aman Prasad","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3639087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3639087","url":null,"abstract":"This research paper is written by the author for the want of strict definition of the term ‘investment(s)’ in the ICID Convention. Article 25 of the Convention nowhere defines investment and therefore, the legislative drafter of the Convention deemed it fit to leave such interpretation on the arbitral jurisprudence of the ad-hoc tribunals so constituted on case to case basis. As investments are not defined in the Convention, however such definitions are clearly worded and expressly found within the BITs and other investment contracts. The parties to the BITs i.e. two sovereign States enter into consultation and negotiation to strictly define the term investment which governs their relations and even the disputes arising thereafter. The law of the BITs is framed by the parties keeping in mind the realms of ‘Public International law’ as well as the ‘Private International law’. It is for this reason that the legislative drafters of the ICID convention knowingly left from defining ‘What are Investment(s).’ One can even argue and has been argued by numerous parties before a tribunal and also through the jurisprudence of the arbitrators that back in the year 1965 when the ICID Convention was formulated, the law makers recommended that defining the term investment under the Convention would restrict and limit the authority of the parties to bring forth their disputes which are concerning Investment per se. The executive working committee report of the ICID Convention also recommended that by intentionally leaving behind from defining the term Investment would justify the role of globalisation within the transnational continents and would lead to better and free movement of investments amongst the contracting parties. Therefore, the author sides with the view of the executive working committee of the ICID Convention from not defining Investments then, however, the author on the other hand also considers it necessary from defining Investments now, within the ICID Convention. Lastly, as there is no rule of stare decisis in international arbitration, the development of jurisprudence of international arbitration is left upon the tribunals formed on case to case basis, this not only leads to lack of uniformity and coherent judgement making by the tribunal, but also creates some serious doubts on the processes legitimacy and credibility. The definition of Investments within Article 25 of the ICID Convention is the need of the hour.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127724072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Permanent Investment Courts and the EU Legal Order","authors":"Eleftheria Neframi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3628233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3628233","url":null,"abstract":"In the external action of the Union, the establishment of permanent investment courts is not only part of the common commercial policy, but also an expression of the objective to promote the rule of law and to act as an influential actor in international procedural law. Through its participation in agreements establishing a bilateral investment court system (ICS) and in the negotiation of the convention establishing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), the Union aims to promote its own standards of judicial protection while preserving the constitutional framework at the basis of the principle of autonomy. The present paper deals with the question of division of competences, especially in the context of the establishment of a MIC and in the allocation of international responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. Moreover, it discusses the scope of fundamental principles of the EU legal order through the position of the Court of Justice in Opinion 1/17 and the analysis of the compatibility of the ICS with primary EU law. While the principles of conferral and of the autonomy of the EU legal order impose constraints to the external action of the Union, their scope is at the same time interpreted in a way to accommodate their guarantee with the EU’s objective to contribute to the major reform of the ISDS. In that way, the guarantee of the EU legal order’s constitutional requirements is not necessarily a limit to the efficiency of the Union’s external action.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124543674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Application of SharīʿAh Finance Rules in International Commercial Arbitration","authors":"A. Farah, R. Hattab","doi":"10.36633/ulr.592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.592","url":null,"abstract":"Due to its flexibility, speed and confidentiality, arbitration becomes the most attractive method for contracting parties to resolve their commercial disputes. This method of choice has developed gradually in the modern legal system of Islamic Countries (ICs) over the last three decades. Thus, many of individual countries have enacted their own arbitration regulations and ratified the relevant international arbitration conventions. They also established many qualified regional arbitration institutions. Subsequently, the referral to arbitration by professionals of these countries to settle their commercial disputes gains abundant popularity. This article provides a detailed view of Sharīʿah factor in international commercial arbitration. Enforcement is certainly the goal for the arbitration process. Nevertheless, enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the ICs could be challenged if these awards are contrary to Sharīʿah public policy. Therefore, by using this exception, the ICs can reject the enforcement of any foreign award that violates Sharīʿah public order.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132281017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The WTO in 2019: Systemic Developments, Disputes and Review of the Appellate Body’s Reports","authors":"G. Sacerdoti, Antonia von Appen, Diana Catalina Royero Avila, Roberto Isibor, Maria Chiara Meneghetti, Mara Agoletti, Federico Marengo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3578997","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3578997","url":null,"abstract":"The year 2019 was marked by a cataclysmic event for the WTO, the demise of the Appellate Body on 11 December 2019. At this date, as an effect by the protracted blockage by the United States of the reappointment process of AB members by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the AB was left with just one member (Ms Hong Zhao from China) bringing it to its paralysis. Ten appeals have been left pending without any clear perspective of how, when and by whom they would be decided in order to bring the underlying disputes to conclusion. In 2019, 10 reports have been issued by panels of which 6 have been appealed. The six reports issued by the Appellate Body in 2019 are being reviewed in this contribution.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"50 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126003224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"한·일 및 한·중·일 투자협정의 투자자-국가 분쟁해결제도 연구：국내법원판결에 관한 판정례를 중심으로 (A Study on Investor-State Dispute Settlement System of the Korea-Japan and the Korea-China-Japan Investment Treaty: Denial of Justice in Cases)","authors":"Jun-Hyun Eom","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3705135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3705135","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Korean Abstract:</b> 우리나라 대법원은 2018년 10월 30일 강제징용 피해자들에 대한 일본기업의 배상책임을 인정하는 판결을 내렸다. 이후 이 일본기업들의 재산 일부가 압류되었고 매각 신청이 접수되었다. 국제투자중재를 전문적으로 다루는 외신은 일본기업의 압류된 자산이 매각되는 경우, 해당 일본기업이 우리나라를 상대로 투자자-국가 분쟁을 중재에 회부할 가능성을 보도한 일본 언론 보도를 인용하기도 했다. 일본기업이 실제로 국제투자중재를 신청할 가능성은 높지 않을 수 있다. 그러나 예상 쟁점을 분석하고 관련 판정례를 검토하는 작업은 우리나라가 일본과 협상을 하는 과정에서 참고될 수 있다. 투자자-국가 분쟁 건수는 1987년부터 계속 증가하여 2019년 1월 1일을 기준으로 누적 건수가 942건에 달했다. 과거에 일본인 투자자는 해외투자 규모에 비해 중재 신청에 매우 소극적이었다. 그러나 2015년부터는 일본인 투자자도 2018년까지 매년 1건씩 중재 신청을 해오고 있다. 이러한 배경에서, 이 연구는 일본기업이 투자자-국가 분쟁을 중재에 회부할 수 있는 근거인 한·일 BIT와 한·중·일 BIT의 ISDS 규정을 분석했다. 그 결과 2003년에 발효한 한·일 BIT는 2014년에 발효한 한·중·일 BIT에 비해 규정이 상세하지 않았다. 한·중·일 BIT와 달리 한·일 BIT에는 MFN 규정이 ISDS와 관련해서 적용되지 않는다는 규정도 없고, FET의 판단 기준이 규정되어 있지 않았으며, 간접수용을 판단하기 위한 세부 기준도 없다. 그런데 한·중·일 BIT에는 투자자가 한·일 BIT와 한·중·일 BIT 중에서 자신에게 더 유리하다고 생각하는 것을 근거로 주장할 수 있다는 명시적인 규정이 있다. 따라서 만약 투자자인 일본기업이 한·일 BIT를 적용 규범으로 선택하여 중재를 신청한다면, ①ISDS 규정에 대한 MFN 규정의 적용 가부 ② 국제법 언급 유무에 따른 FET 기준 차이 여부 ③ 간접수용 판단에서의 세부기준이 쟁점으로 다투어질 가능성이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 이렇게 식별된 쟁점을 바탕으로 중재판정례를 검토했다. 첫 번째 예상 쟁점인 ISDS 규정에 대한 MFN 규정의 적용 가부라는 쟁점은 중재판정례에서 세부적으로 판단되었다. MFN 규정은 중재회부 금지기간에 대해서만 적용되고, 국내 구제절차완료, ISDS 규정에 미언급된 분쟁해결제도 선택, ISDS 규정에 미언급된 의무규정을 근거로 한 주장에 대해서는 적용되지 않는다는 판정례가 많았다. 그러나 ISDS 규정에 미언급된 분쟁해결제도 선택과 ISDS 규정에 미언급된 의무규정을 근거로 한 주장과 관련해서 MFN 규정의 적용을 인정하는 판정례도 일부 발견되었다. 두 번째 예상 쟁점인 국제법 언급 유무에 따른 FET 기준 차이 여부와 관련하여 판정례를 분석한 결과, 문언의 차이에도 불구하고 국제법과 동등한 의무의 수준을 요구하는 것으로 대체로 수렴하는 경향을 보였다. 다만 FET의 기준으로서 국제법이 언급되지 않은 FET 규정을 해석하면서 국제법보다 더 높은 대우의 수준이 요구된다고 판단한 중재판정부도 있었다. 세 번째 예상쟁점은 간접수용 판단에서의 세부기준이었다. 먼저 정부 행위의 경제적 영향에 대해서는 경제적 가치 감소, 투자에 대한 투자자의 통제권 상실, 정부 행위의 지속성이 세부기준으로 식별되었다. 다음으로 투자에 기인한 분명하고 합리적인 기대를 침해하는 정도라는, 한·중·일 BIT에 규정된 기준 그 자체가 이미 투자에 대한 투자자의 정당한 기대가 더 구체화된 형태라는 점을 확인했다. 끝으로 정부 행위의 성격과 목적에 대한 세부 기준으로는, 선의의 규제 조치일 것과 정당한 공공정책 목적을 진정으ㄹ로 추구하는 행위일 것, 그리고 정부 행위의 특성을 갖는 행위일 것이 식별되었다. 한편 FET 의무 위반의 한 유형으로서 법원의 조치가 다투어지는 이른바 사법부인도 있었다. 사법부 판결도 당사국의 조치로서 중재판정의 대상이 된다는 사실은 판정례에서 일관되게 인정되고 있는 것으로 평가된다. 그러나 사법부인으로 인정되기 위해서는 판결의 결과가 충격적이면서도 피신청국의 사법제도에 의해 자체적으로 전혀 시정되지 않아야 한다는 대단히 엄격한 기준이 2018년에 일부판정이 내려진 Chevron and TexPet v. Ecuador (II) 판정에서 제시되었다. 지금까지 분석한 내용을 통해 얻을 수 있는 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, ISDS 규정에 대해서 MFN 규정이 적용되지 않는다는 제한 규정이 한·일 BIT에는 없지만, 관할권 등 중요한 문제와 관련해서는 우리나라에 불이익이 없을 것으로 전망된다. 다만 중재회부를 위해서 투자자가 기다려야 하는 기간이 단축되는 등의 경미한 불리함이 예상된다. 둘째, FET 의무의 기준으로 비록 한·일 BIT에는 국제법이 규정되어 있지 않지만, 지금까지의 대다수 판정례와 같이 중재판정부는 국제법과 동등한 FET 기준을 우리나라에 적용할 것으로 예상된다. 다만 한·일 BIT처럼 FET 기준에 대한 규정이 없는 투자협정이 적용된 일부 판정례에서 국제법보다 더 높은 수준의 FET 기준이 요구된 사례도 일부 식별되었음을 참고해야 한다. 셋째, 간접수용 판단에 대한 세부기준이 없는 한·일 BIT의 경우 정부의 묵시적 확인도 중재판정부에 의해 인정될 가능성이 있다. 넷째, FET 의무의 내용 중 하나인 사법부인과 관련해서 판정례에서 매우 엄격한 기준이 제시되는 점을 고려하면, 우리 대법원의 판결이 여기에 해당될 가능성은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 대단히 희박하다고 생각된다. 더불어 우리나라 BIT의 문언을 장기적으로 지속적으로 다듬고 갱신해나가는 일이 중요하다. BIT의 동일한 문언이 중재판정부에 따라 다르게 해석되는 경우도 있지만, 그렇다고 하더라도 일반적으로 중재판정부들이 가장 집중하여 심리하는 것이 바로 해당 사건에 적용되는 BIT의 문언이라는 점은 부인하기 어렵다. 따라서 불필요한 논란의 소지가 없도록 규정을 다듬고, 우리나라 및 우리 투자자의 수요를 반영하며, 최신의 판정 동향을 반영해나가야 할 것이다.<br><br><br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> The Kor","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131124210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}