자궁 근종 임질 험방

김여선,Kim, Yeo-Seon 대한한약협회 1998 大韓漢藥 Vol.2 No.-

韓ㆍ中間 반덤핑規制에 關한 硏究

金汝善(Kim, Yeu-Sun) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2001 통상법률 Vol.- No.39

ISD중재의 선례인용에 관한 연구

김여선(Kim, Yeu-Sun) 한국국제경제법학회 2017 국제경제법연구 Vol.15 No.1

국제투자협정("IIA")에 근거한 투자자와 투자수용국간 분쟁은 제3의 기관에서 중재로서 해결하는 것이 일반적이다. 임시로 구성되는 중재판정부는 법률관념(영미법과 대륙법), 보수성(공공이익)과 진보성(투자보호)과 같은 성향에 차이가 있다. 이 성향은 판정에 영향을 미친다. ISD중재판정의 불일치는 판정의 공정성, 권위성 그리고 ISD중재 제도 자체에 위기를 발생시킨다. 이를 해소하기 위하여 ISD 중재판정부는 선례를 인용하는 현상이 두드러진다. 선례인용은 중재에서 가장 활발하다. EL PASO v. Argentine판정문에서 인용한 선례는 214개를 넘는다. Daimler Financial Services AG사례와 Reinhard Unglaube사례에서 인용한 선례도 50여개를 넘고 있다. ICSID의 중재판정은 비ICSID의 중재판정을 많이 인용한다. 선례인용은 ISD중재 심리과정의 보편적 현상이 되었다. 이것은 ISD중재 판정에서 선례구속원칙의 적용에 연결된다. 중재에서 선례구속원칙이 존재하지 않는 것은 명백하다. ISD중재의 판정불일치는 주권국가와 투자자의 예측가능성을 파괴하고 ISD제도의 합법성 위기를 야기한다. 따라서 ISD중재에서 판정의 일관성은 필수적 목표로 간주된다. 중재판정부는 ‘유사안건의 유사판정’보다 ‘동일사안의 동일판결’이 법치의 기본원칙이라고 인식하게 되었다. 중재판정부는 선 · 후판정의 일관성 유지를 위하여 사실관계를 대조한다. 그리고 선례인용은 판정의 일관성과 예측가능성(predictability)을 담보하는 최적의 경로라고 인식한다. 선례인용은 판정의 일관성을 유지하고 한편 법리의 통일화를 추진하는 기능도 있다. 선례인용은 국제투자규범을 추진하는 동력이 된다. 현행 국제법 및 국제투자규범의 시각에서 보면 선례구속원칙에 관한 규정은 존재하지 않는다 ICSID 판정사례는 보통법계의 선례구속이 적용되지 않고 사실상 유도력만 가진다. 그러나 선례구속의 원칙이 ISD중재 제도에 포함되어 있다. 이것은 보통법계의 ‘법률상 선례’가 아니다. 변경된 국제투자규범의 특유의 ‘선례구속’으로 ‘선례인용’이다. 중재판정부의 선례 의존성도 증가되고 있다. 인용된 선례는 실질적이고 사실상의 ISD중재의 법원으로 받아들여지고 있다. 그러나 ISD중재의 선례인용은 법적근거가 부족하다. 중재판정에서 선례인용은 법률적 선례구속원칙이 적용된다고 할 수 없다. 사실상의 선례구속이라 보아야 한다. ISD중재에서 선례인용의 방법, 선례인용에 의한 오판 그리고 구제시스템의 구축 등의 문제가 있다. 선례가 관습국제투자규범을 창설하지 못한다. 중재판정의 선례는 현실에서 필요성이 크다. ISD중재에서 선례인용은 객관적이어야 한다. 선례를 맹목적으로 중시하거나 혹은 간과해서도 않된다. For Investor-State Dispute based on International Investment Agreement, International Investment Agreement to be arbitrated by the third Arbitration Tribunal is general. Temporarily constituted Arbitration Tribunal stands apart as legislation notion(Common Law and Continental Law), conservatism(public interests), progressivism(investment protection). This tendency affects judgement. The discordance of Investor-State Dispute Arbitration Award occurs critical situation on fairness, authority and Investor-State Dispute System of judgements. To alleviate those, the arbitral tribunal stands out using of precedents. The use of precedents is animated on arbitration. In the case of EL PASE vs. Argentine, there are over 50 of precedents. The arbitral awards of others International Convention State-Investor Dispute quote those of Non International Convention State-Investor Dispute. The quotation of precedents is universal on the process of hearing of Investor-State Dispute arbitration. This is related to the application of doctrine of stare decisis on Arbitration of Investor-State Dispute. It is clear of not existing doctrine of stare decisis on arbitration. The discordance of Arbitration of Investor-State Dispute destroys predictability of investors and sovereign nations, and causes the legality crisis of Investor-State Dispute System. Thus, the consistency of judgements on Arbitration of Investor-State Dispute is regarded as essential objective. The arbitral tribunal agonizes the fundamental principle of governing by law as "like cases should be decided alike" rahter than “Similar cases should be award similar”. The Arbitral Tribunal, to maintain consistency of the order of judgement, compares the fact relevances. Also, the Use of Precedents are appreciated as the optimal channel to guarantee judgements of consistency and predictability. The Use of Precedents keeps the consistency of judgements and also has a function of unification of the principle of law. The Use of Precedents becomes the propulsion power of rule of international investment. In the view of the existing rule of international law and international investment norm, the regulation on doctrine of stare decisis is not existing. In the cases of judgements of International Convention State-Investor Dispute, stare decisis of common law is not applied but only has actual persuasive authority. However, the principle of stare decisis is included to system of arbitration of Investor-State Dispute. This is not "de jure precedent" of common law but Use of Precedents as unique stare decisis of changed international investment norm. Precedents Dependancy of The Arbitral Tribunal is increasing. The use of precedents are being accepted as source of law of practical and factual Arbitration Award of Investor-State Dispute. On the other hand, the legal ground of the use of precedents of Arbitration Award of Investor-State Dispute is insufficient. At the use of precedents at arbitration award, the legal doctrine of stare decisis can not be seen as applied but factual De Facto Precedent. There are defects on the use of precedents of Arbitration Award of Investor-State dispute, wrong tribunal by the use of precedents and establishment of Appeal System. The precedents can not create conventional international investment norm. The precedents of arbitral tribunal is necessary in reality. The Use of Precedents at Investor-State Dispute Arbitration Award has to be objective. The Precedents should not be stressed on and not overlooked.

WTO 加入에 따른 中國 投資法制 改編

김여선(Kim Yeu Sun) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2002 통상법률 Vol.- No.46

Since 1992, Chinese foreign investment laws have been moving towards the common principles of foreign investment laws in market economies. China's entry into the WTO had prompted the nation to revise its current laws and regulations and, subsequently, improve foreign investment laws. This article four features of the common principles and surveys four aspects of recent developments of foreign investment laws towards these principles. Expanding the economic sectors for foreign direct investment , allowing multiple forms or new types of FDI (M&A etc) , granting national treatment of FDI, and pursuing transparency of joint venture laws and finally comments on the significance of recent developments of foreign investment laws. The results points out that recent developments of towards a common approach have made great positive impacts on FDI to China, treatment of FDI in China and structural adjustment of foreign investment.

국제투자정의의 국내법부합규정 고찰

김여선(Yeu Sun Kim) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2011 통상법률 Vol.- No.97

Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been used as a tool for protecting international investment. The definition of investment is key to the scope of application of rights and obligations of investment agreements and to the establishment of the jurisdiction of investment treaty-based arbitral tribunals(investor to state dispute). The BIT generation appears to follow a broad approach. All recent BITs seem to have chosen a broad asset-based definition of “investment” covering investments directly or indirectly controlled by investors of either Party. Furthermore, the list of covered assets is an open. As far as the definition of investment is concerned, most investment agreements adopt an open-ended approach which favours a broad definition of investment. Recent BITs also seem to have opted for a broad definition of hybrid list investment, encompassing both features of investment and companies of the parties and, as in the case of the United States model BIT(2004). Many BITs provide for additional requirements by limiting the treaty protection to investments that have been made “in accordance with the laws and regulations” of the host state. Host states have argued that this meant that the concept of investment, and hence the reach of protection under the BIT, had to be determined by reference to their own domestic law. ICSID tribunal have rejected this approach. They have held that the reference to the host country's domestic law concerned not the definition of the term investment solely the legality of the investment. Korea has so far signed BIT and FTAs with 80 countries. Many Korean BIT include the provision, “ In accordance with the laws and regulations of the host state” in the definitions of investment. Most FTAs include “in accordance with the laws and regulations of the host state” not in definition clause but list of covered assets. Of these, Korea-EU FTA include “in accordance with the laws and regulations” of the host state in portfolio investment of list of covered assets. Before the effectivation of a Korea-EU FTA, Korea has to modify domestic law regarding portfolio investment such as 「Foreign Exchange Transactions Act」 and 「Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act」.

ISD 중재판정의 승인과 집행에 관한 연구

김여선(Yeu Sun Kim) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2013 통상법률 Vol.- No.111

BIT(Bilateral Investment Treaty) or FTA(Free Trade Agreement) defines ISD(Investor-States Settlement of Investment Disputes) in its investment chapter as an important investment protection system which allows investors and host countries to resolve a dispute directly. ISD provides both local remedies and international arbitration, but investors have to choose one of them (Fork-in road). International arbitration is more attractive to investors because fairness could be secured and sovereign immunity could be avoided effectively by choosing it. In the case of local remedies, ISD occurs by amendment of laws or administrative actions of the host country; the amended law becomes the governing law, and due process of administrative actions is the only object of a hearing whereas legitimacy and legality are dealt with separately. On the other hand, ISD would be an advantage to investors because it could handle legality of the amended law or administrative actions in the international legal standard. If both parties are members of ICSID, ISD arbitration forum would be formed by Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States(ICSID), and if one of the parties is not a member of ICSID, a special ad-hoc committee would be organized by Additional Facility Rules of the ICSID, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and other arbitral rules agreed between the parties in disputes. Therefore, ISD arbitrations fall into the following two categories: ICSID arbitrations and non-ICSID arbitrations. Arbitration is a series of following procedures: consultation and negotiation, submission of a claim to arbitration, selection of arbitrators, conduct of the arbitration, award, recognition of an award of the court in the execution place and enforcement of the award. Recognition and enforcement are important for securing effectiveness because an arbitral award has an effect under the range of judicial sovereignty of its venue. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award target problems in sphere of public law such as breaches of BIT/FTA, licensing authority and state contracts. There are some different views whether an award imposing responsibility for the fulfillment of obligations is possible, but cases and theories agree that it would be possible in principle. Recognition and enforcement ICSID arbitral awards follow provisions of ICSID Convention itself. As recognition and enforcement are independent procedures: recognition follows ICSID Convention, and enforcement follows domestic laws in venue and international treaties. If there are domestic laws about sovereign immunity, exemption of enforcement would be available. However, an exemption of enforcement is possible only for non-commercial property of state. Regulations on recognition and enforcement of non-ICSID arbitral awards in UNCITRAL Model Law and International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules are not complete. Thus, recognition and enforcement of non-ICSID arbitral awards follow New York Convention: it is stance of theories and domestic courts. When New York Convention is applied, arbitration possibility and public order could become problems; courts of each country resolve these problems by a broad interpretation. An important thing is that there is no legal ground to deny recognition and enforcement of ISD arbitral awards. Finally, ICSID Convention regulates diplomatic protection as a remedy in case enforcement is not available. BIT/FTA may define installation of a panel which the third parties participate in. In this case, the investors' home country becomes a party and the new party should undergo a new procedure of the exhaustion of local remedies.

국제투자규범의 ISDS체제 개혁에 관한 연구

김여선(KIM, YEU-SUN) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2019 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.26

투자자와 투자수용국간 분쟁해결제도는 투자자가 국가에 직접 손해배상을 청구할 수 있도록 한다. ISDS는 투자분쟁을 외교보호에서 개인이 직접 분쟁을 해결할 수 있도록 한다. ISDS는 투자분쟁에서 정치적 위험을 제거하는 탈정치화와 규범화를 이루었다. 최근까지 3,000여개의 국제투자협정에서 ISDS를 포함하고 있다. 현재의 IIA는 실체적 혹은 절차적 내용의 유사성으로 국제투자 보호체제를 형성한다. ISDS사례는 계속 증가되어 투자자 보호의 유효한 수단이 되었다. 하지만 ISDS에 대하여 많은 문제가 제기된다. ISDS체제의 비판은 다양하다. 첫째, 판정의 일관성과 예측가능성이 결여되어 ISDS자체의 정당성 위기가 발생된다. 그리고 판정결과에 대한 교정과 통제 메커니즘이 부재하다. 둘째, ISDS제도 자체의 민주적 책임성과 합법성에 대한 우려가 있다. 국가는 IIA라는 투자조약의 매커니즘을 확립했으므로 국제법에 따라 정당성이 보장된다. ISDS판정에 의한 국가주권이 훼손되는 상황에서는 제도자체의 민주성이 인정되는 것은 아니다. 그리고 중재인의 임명절차가 민주적이지 못하고, 중재과정에서 공정성과 독립성의 문제도 있다. 셋째, ISDS제도 자체의 절차기간 및 비용 그리고 투명성의 결여 등의 문제도 있다. 국제투자분쟁해결센터, 경제협력개발기구, 유엔무역개발협의회 그리고 국제상거래법위원회 등의 국제경제기구에서 ISDS체제 개혁을 위한 연구를 진행하고 있다. 그리고 미국과 EU 등이 IIA를 통하여 점진적인 개혁을 추진 중에 있다. 대부분의 개혁안이 상소제도의 설치였다. 그러나 개혁절차에 어려움을 지적하고, 실현방안에 회의적이었다. 주목할 만한 것은 바로 UNCITRAL과 EU의 개혁방안이다. UNCITRAL은 이미 ‘ISDS의 투명성규칙’과 ‘투명성협약’을 발효하여 일부 개혁을 성공시켰다. 그리고 최근에는 ISDS의 병행절차, 중재인의 윤리문제 등에 단계적으로 접근하여 연구하고 있다. 무엇보다도 UNCITRAL의 연구중에 핵심문제는 독립형 상소기구와 상설 투자분쟁 메카니즘의 설립논의이다. 이 논의는 아주 구체적으로 이루어지고 있으며 상당한 실현가능성이 예견된다. 양자 관계에서는 EU의 ISDS개혁의지가 가장 크다. EU는 기본적으로 공동의 통상정책과 경제정책을 추구하기 때문에 국가의 규제권에 민감하다. 따라서 ISDS체제를 국제공법의 체제로 변화시키고자 한다. 2016년 EU는 상소시스템을 포함하는 협정을 체결하였다. 즉, EU-캐나다 포괄적경제무역협정과 EU-Vietnam FTA 등의 체결이다. EU는 한발 더 나아가 상설투자법원의 내용이 포함된 EU-미국 경제협정의 체결을 위하여 협상을 하고 있다. 하지만 양자는 본질적으로 충돌하여 협상이 중단되었다. 미국은 현재의 ISDS는 투자자 주도의 상사중재 모형으로 본다. ISDS의 탄생이 상사중재 시스템에 근거를 두고 설계되었다고 한다. EU는 ISDS는 국가 주도의 공법 분쟁 처리의 경로라고 한다. 현재의 ISDS체제는 결코 그 문제점을 개선할 수 없다고 한다. 양자의 대립이 존재하지만 현재의 많은 국가에서 ISDS의 문제점에 공감하고 있어 합의가 기대된다. 대립이 존재하는 현재ISDS체제 개혁의 실현방안으로 다자협정접근법이 가장 현실적이다. 모리셔스협약(다자협정)의 체결 경험이 있고, 유보/가입 및 미가입으로 설계가 용이하고, 조약법에 관한 비엔나협약 제30조에 의하여 기술적인 문제도 없다. 다만 ICSID협약 제53조의 관계만 잘 처리하면 될 것이다.

中國의 對韓 反덤핑 規制에 對한 對應論理開發에 關한 硏究(下)

김여선(Kim Yeu-Sun) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2005 성균관법학 Vol.17 No.2

China enacted the Anti-Dumping Regulations in 1997, and the regulatory body enforcing it, the Ministry of Commerce (""MOC"") issued its first decision under the law in December of 1997. China have reformed their laws and regulatory systems to meet international standards in 2003. China's System of Anti-Dumping Regulations are consist of foreign trade law, Anti-Dumping Regulations and few sub-articles. As usual with Chinese laws, the regulations are apparently easy to understand. Since 1997, China imposed a series of punitive duties on sixteen types of imported Korean goods and is investigation to issue more. So, It is necessary to Cope with Chinese Anti-Dumping Measures. This Article has studied on China's System of Anti-Dumping Regulations and try to find a way of Cope with Chinese Anti-Dumping Measures.

中國의 對韓 反덤핑 規制에 對한 對應論理開發에 關한 硏究(上)

김여선(Kim Yeu-Sun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2005 성균관법학 Vol.17 No.1

China enacted the Anti-Dumping Regulations in 1997, and the regulatory body enforcing it, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOC") issued its first decision under the law in December of 1997. China have reformed their laws and regulatory systems to meet international standards in 2003. China's System of Anti-Dumping Regulations are consist of foreign trade law, Anti-Dumping Regulations and few sub-articles. As usual with Chinese laws, the regulations are apparently easy to understand. Since 1997, China imposed a series of punitive duties on sixteen types of imported Korean goods and is investigation to issue more. So, It is necessary to Cope with Chinese Anti-Dumping Measures. This Article has studied on China's System of Anti-Dumping Regulations and try to find a way of Cope with Chinese Anti-Dumping Measures.

국제투자중재에서 부적절 행위의 증명기준

김여선 ( Kim¸ Yeu-sun ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2021 국제법무 Vol.13 No.2

Misconduct and impropriety by investors or public officials in the host country occur during the establishment stage or investment operation process of international investment. The parties to the inappropriate conduct may be investors and the authorities of the receiving country. There are various types of corruption, bribery, fraud, and illegality. International investment arbitration has dealt with a wide variety of legal issues regarding the inappropriate conduct of the parties. This paper examines the standard of proof of cases related to improper conduct in International Investment Arbitration. Proofing inappropriate behavior is very difficult. However, due to the nature of the inappropriate conduct, it requires a high standard of proof. The difficulty of proving inappropriate behavior and the requirement of a high standard of proof are contradictory. A lot of criticism from the academic world has been raised. The doctrine argues for a shifting burden of proof for fraud, corruption, illegality, and abuse of procedures. the applicant for arbitration. If the other party asserts inappropriate conduct, the other party bears the burden of proof. However, the current position of the arbitral tribunal has a passive position with respect to evidence and proof. Recent arbitral tribunals apply various standards of proof. First, the high standard of proof applies the standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’. It is also considered that the inappropriate conduct has a criminal nature and that the government of the receiving country is involved, which is a respect for national sovereignty. Second, some tribunal of International Investment Arbitrations apply a lower standard of proof. It appears in some arbitral award cases as a slightly relaxed standard of proof from a high standard of proof. Third, very few arbitral tribunals apply circumstantial evidence. The application of circumstantial evidence has generated a great response in academic and practical circles. This paper examines that the ISDS arbitral tribunal confuses the terms and concepts of evidence and evidence in the case of international investment arbitration. There is no distinction between the legal burden of proof and the evidentiary burden of proof, and both are recognized as the burden of proof. It is used without distinguishing between the shifting of the burden of proof and the inversion of the burden of proof. The reason for this is the lack of evidence and evidence in the International Investment Agreement. Therefore, the rule of evidence in domestic law applies. Confusion of evidence and proof causes problems of predictability of award of international investment arbitration and inconstancy of award. Evidence and evidence in international investment law are still confusing and unclear.