한-EU FTA의 농업부문에 대한 연구

이종원 한국유럽학회 2007 유럽연구 Vol.25 No.2

Korea has actively established its FTA relations with Chile, Singapore, EFTA which are relatively small and located at a long distance from Korea. These are the results of the Korean Government's New FTA policy seeking FTA establishments with foreign countries as many as possible at the same period. But after the establishment of Korea-US FTA in May, 2007, Korea is proceeding FTA negotiations with the EU and China and Japan, which will be the main FTA partners. As both of Korea and EU agreed to consider the sensitivity of the agricultural sector in the FTA negotiations, the worries about agricultural sector as a stumbling block greatly decreased. Actually the agricultural concession of tariff and immediate elimination ratio of the EU do not exceed those of Korea not much. In addition, the EU has a flexible attitude of negotiation style in responding to the conditions of partner country and this style might be greatly helpful for the early establishment of Korea-US FTA negotiations and its ratification in Korea. Under these circumstances, this paper intends to analyze the CAP of the EU and its agricultural cases of FTA, the trends of trade in agriculture and livestock and finally it deals with the agricultural impacts and countermeasures. The EU is the biggest market which is bigger than that of US, with having higher tariff rate in manufacturing sector than US. The EU also shares with Korea in a sense that it is sensitive in liberalizing agriculture. Therefore, I expect that Korea may have a reasonable and flexible attitude of negotiations with convincing that agricultural should be solved with domestic subsidies, which can bring the early effectiveness of the Korea-EU FTA. 우리나라는 동시다발적인 FTA 체결을 정부방침으로 세운 이후 칠레, 싱가포르, EFTA(유럽자유무역연합) 등 비교적 먼 거리의 작은 규모의 나라들과 자유무역협정을 발효시켰고, 2007년에 와서는 5월에 미국과의 FTA협정을 타결시킨 후 8월 현재 EU와 협상을 진행하고 있다. 이후의 주된 협상 대상 국가는 중국과 일본이 될 것이다. 한-EU FTA에서는 양측이 농산물 부문의 민감성을 상호간에 고려하기로 합의함에 따라 농산물이 협상의 걸림돌이 될 것이라는 당초 우려가 크게 불식되었다. 실제로 EU는 2003년에 발효된 EU-칠레 FTA 등에서 EU의 관세양허와 즉시 철폐율이 우리의 농업양허범위를 크게 벗어나지 않는다. 뿐만 아니라, EU는 FTA 상대에 따라 농업협상을 유연하게 운영하고 있다. 이러한 EU의 협상스타일은 한-EU FTA 협상의 조기타결과 국내 조기비준에 큰 도움을 줄 것으로 기대된다.본고에서는 EU의 공동농업정책 및 FTA의 농업사례들을 분석하고, 한-EU 농축산물 교역 현황을 살펴보고, 끝으로 한-EU FTA의 농업부문 영향과 이에 대한 대처방안을 다룬다. EU는 미국보다 큰 세계 최대 시장이며, 제조업의 평균관세도 미국보다 높다. 또한 우리와 같이 농업개방에 민감한 공통점도 있다. 따라서 한-미 FTA보다 한-EU FTA의 실현이 더 용이해 보인다. 그러므로 우리나라는 EU와의 협상에서는 농업문제는 국내보조로 해결할 수 있다는 유연하면서도 합리적인 협상태도를 견지하여 빠른 시일 내 한-EU FTA가 발효되기를 기대한다.

한국-EU FTA 환경분야에 관한 연구

강준하(KANG Jun Ha) 국제법평론회 2010 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.31

한-EU FTA는 환경분야를 독립된 챕터로 다루고 있는 한-미 FTA와 마찬가지로, 환경분야를 무역과 지속가능발전이라는 독립된 챕터에서 다루고 있는 FTA로서, 환경 측면에서 보면 친환경적 FTA라고도 할 수 있을 것이다. 한-EU FTA는 양자간 교역의 활성화가 지속가능발전이라는 목표 달성에 긍정적일 수 있다는 전제하에, 양자간의 협력을 강화하고 관련 협의를 지속할 수 있는 틀을 구축하고 있다. 이를 위하여 무역과 지속가능발전위원회, 자문단, 시민사회 대화 메커니즘 등 제도적 장치를 갖추도록 하고 있으며, 다양한 형태의 협력사업을 진행하도록 하고 있다. 또한 양자간의 협력뿐 아니라 다자 환경협상에서도 공조체제를 갖추도록 하고 있다. 한편으로 당사자는 자신에 맞는 환경보호수준을 설정할 수 있도록 하면서, 일단 설정된 기준은 엄격히 집행되도록 하고, 그 보호수준을 지속적으로 높여 가도록 함으로써 전반적인 환경보호수준의 향상을 도모하고 있다. 한-EU FTA는 향후 우리나라의 통상ㆍ환경정책 및 FTA협상 전략에도 영향을 미칠 것으로 보인다. 특히 더 이상 환경이 통상협상에 이질적인 존재가 아닌 중요한 주제가 된 이상 통상문제를 다룸에 있어 어떻게 환경요소를 결부시키고, 이를 반영해 나갈 것인지에 대한 보다 근본적인 입장 정리가 필요할 것이다. 또한 한-EU FTA를 우리나라가 환경선진국이 되기 위한 발판으로 삼아야 한다. FTA를 통한 환경관련 상품, 서비스시장 개방이 위기가 될 수도 있겠지만, 이를 환경산업의 육성과 제도의 선진화를 도모하고, 환경선진국이 되기 위한 좋은 기회로 활용할 수 있을 것이다. Since Korea-EU FTA deals with environmental issues in a separate Chapter(Trade and Sustainable Development), it can be regarded as pro-environmental FTA. Korea-EU FTA provides a framework to discuss all the necessary matters and reinforce mutual cooperation for the purposes of achieving sustainable development. While recognizing each Party’s right to establish its own levels of environmental protection, Korea-EU FTA also requires each Party to make efforts to improve the environmental laws and policies. On the premise that trade should promote sustainable development, Korea-EU FTA encourages the Parties to engage in a wide range of cooperative works. Through Korea-EU FTA, Korea-EU may cooperate on the global environmental problems. The Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development, Advisory Group(s) and Civil Society Dialogue Forum may be established for implementing Korea-EU FTA in terms of sustainable development. Korea-EU FTA may affect Korea’s strategy for the future FTA negotiation by integrating environmental issues into trade negotiation. Although Korea-EU may be a challenge for Korea by opening its market for environmental goods and services, Korea may take advantage of Korea-EU FTA for restructuring domestic environmental industry and upgrading domestic laws and policies on environment. By doing so, Korea may become a leading countη in the area of environment.

The Implications for the Korea-EU FTA: Lessons from the Previous Experience

이종원,신상협 한국유럽학회 2007 유럽연구 Vol.24 No.-

In this study, we mainly discuss about the Korea‐EU FTA which seems to be relatively easier to be completed than the Korea‐USA FTA. For this, firstly we review the FTA policy of the EU and Korea. We also analyze the economic effects of the Korea‐EU FTA, comparing it with the economic effects of the Korea‐USA FTA. We will analyze how the USA‐Mexico FTA was established. Finally, based on this research, the following suggestions are suggested to the Korean government for the successful completion of the Korea‐EU FTA. Firstly, we should consider enough about our position towards the current trade‐related issues which have been raised by both Korea and the EU for the FTA negotiations with the EU. Secondly, we should make efforts to increase the number of products made by Kaesung special economic area, which we will try to persuade the EU to recognize them as Korean made products at the negotiations. This is very important for the future economic relations between the North and South Korea. Thirdly, Korea should also well prepare our positions towards negotiations in service sector with the EU. This is because the EU has comparative advantages in the international market so that the EU is expected to maximize their benefits in the service sector in the negotiation for the Korea‐EU FTA. 이 논문에서는 유럽연합(EU)이 한국의 FTA 상대로서의 가능성을 심층 분석하고 있다. 이를 위해 우선 한국과 EU의 FTA가 한국 경제에 미칠 수 있는 경제적 효과를 기존의 연구결과를 중심으로 분석하였다. 또한 EU와의 FTA협정을 추진함에 있어서 예상되는 어려움 등을 이미 EU가 설립한 EUMexico FTA 협정을 분석함으로써 조사했다. 동시에 이 분석을 기초로 하여 한국이 EU와 FTA를 추진함에 있어서 바람직하다고 생각되는 전략을 소개하고 있다.

New Issue in the field of Korean Sports law regarding the Korea EU FTA -Focused on the problem of the sports athletes contract-

김은경 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 2009 스포츠와 법 Vol.12 No.4

EU is Korea’s largest trading partner, and it is actually the largest single market in the World. Throughout the summit between South Korea and Sweden, the Korea EU FTA(Free Trade Agreement) was declared an end to the trade negotiations in July 2009. Accordingly, legal reviews on specified issues of the FTA are being conducted and the formal signing is expected to take place in January or February in 2010. We have interests in how EU would deal with the legal problems encountered by under this system. In particular, we have a lot more concerns on how they would approach to the cultural aspect. Thus I would like to study on the effect of FTA in sports area in specified and limited extent. Furthermore, I am willingly to arouse interest of this issue from the legal point of view. The standard of holding professional football players in EU countries is generally to treat the athletes from EU countries completely equally as the domestic athletes in Member states, and to limit the number of athletes derived from Non EU country of one team. For example, in the Premier League in England, the number of players from Non EU countries is just a few, while the players from EU countries are more than that of England. Virtually, there are a lot of players from Brazil or Argentina, having acquired the citizenship of EU member states and become a person with dual nationality in order to participate in the games. The situation in Korea is a little different. In the case of Korean League, the number of foreign players that one team might hold is limited to three, and each team can separately hold one player from the Member states of Asian Football Confederation. Consequently, there would be four players in total, including an Asian player, in a professional football team. The problem can be caused by that such different standards between Korea and EU about holding foreign athletes. First of all, in order to enter the Korean player in EU, they have to submit the restrictions to the Non EU players. However, if the Korean players can be granted the same conditions as the EU players get through the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and EU, things will change. For example, Korean players shall be granted the same conditions as the EU players received in accordance with the Article 39 of EC treaty, which authorizes the freedom of movement in labor. In that case, a lot more Korean players are expected to enter to the European League. Of course, the precondition of this possibility is to release the restrictions for the players throughout FTA, and the all of associations such as Football Confederation apply the direction above. This can be possibly happened according to the follow up measures or agreement in FTA even though it is happening now. Second of all, the restrictions for EU players to work in Korea seem to be released in many aspects. This can be a relative thing that begins with the open door policy after the Korea EU FTA. As it mentioned previously, Korea should treat the EU players same as their domestic players in exchange if EU does not discriminate Korean players anymore, and we have doubts about whether things can be in accord with each other in terms of the situation in Korea and sports market in Asia nowadays. It is clear that the Pan Asiatic associations such as Asian Football Confederation should consider on this issue. If the probability occurs in practical time, the possibility for the Non EU players from Brazil or Africa will be reduced remarkably. Third of all, there is an issue on the dual nationality. As it mentioned already, EU admits the dual nationality and takes a barrier down for the Brazilian or the Argentine players. This is due to the long historical relationship between the Europe and South America region. However, In Korea, it has not made the actual relationship and basically does not legally admit the dual nationality, that there is no way to let the foreign players stay in Korea. Thus the way t... EU is Korea’s largest trading partner, and it is actually the largest single market in the World. Throughout the summit between South Korea and Sweden, the Korea EU FTA(Free Trade Agreement) was declared an end to the trade negotiations in July 2009. Accordingly, legal reviews on specified issues of the FTA are being conducted and the formal signing is expected to take place in January or February in 2010. We have interests in how EU would deal with the legal problems encountered by under this system. In particular, we have a lot more concerns on how they would approach to the cultural aspect. Thus I would like to study on the effect of FTA in sports area in specified and limited extent. Furthermore, I am willingly to arouse interest of this issue from the legal point of view. The standard of holding professional football players in EU countries is generally to treat the athletes from EU countries completely equally as the domestic athletes in Member states, and to limit the number of athletes derived from Non EU country of one team. For example, in the Premier League in England, the number of players from Non EU countries is just a few, while the players from EU countries are more than that of England. Virtually, there are a lot of players from Brazil or Argentina, having acquired the citizenship of EU member states and become a person with dual nationality in order to participate in the games. The situation in Korea is a little different. In the case of Korean League, the number of foreign players that one team might hold is limited to three, and each team can separately hold one player from the Member states of Asian Football Confederation. Consequently, there would be four players in total, including an Asian player, in a professional football team. The problem can be caused by that such different standards between Korea and EU about holding foreign athletes. First of all, in order to enter the Korean player in EU, they have to submit the restrictions to the Non EU players. However, if the Korean players can be granted the same conditions as the EU players get through the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and EU, things will change. For example, Korean players shall be granted the same conditions as the EU players received in accordance with the Article 39 of EC treaty, which authorizes the freedom of movement in labor. In that case, a lot more Korean players are expected to enter to the European League. Of course, the precondition of this possibility is to release the restrictions for the players throughout FTA, and the all of associations such as Football Confederation apply the direction above. This can be possibly happened according to the follow up measures or agreement in FTA even though it is happening now. Second of all, the restrictions for EU players to work in Korea seem to be released in many aspects. This can be a relative thing that begins with the open door policy after the Korea EU FTA. As it mentioned previously, Korea should treat the EU players same as their domestic players in exchange if EU does not discriminate Korean players anymore, and we have doubts about whether things can be in accord with each other in terms of the situation in Korea and sports market in Asia nowadays. It is clear that the Pan Asiatic associations such as Asian Football Confederation should consider on this issue. If the probability occurs in practical time, the possibility for the Non EU players from Brazil or Africa will be reduced remarkably. Third of all, there is an issue on the dual nationality. As it mentioned already, EU admits the dual nationality and takes a barrier down for the Brazilian or the Argentine players. This is due to the long historical relationship between the Europe and South America region. However, In Korea, it has not made the actual relationship and basically does not legally admit the dual nationality, that there is no way to let the foreign players stay in Korea. Thus the way to solve t...

FTA 체결 전·후 한국 지식집약형 산업의 수출경쟁력 비교 연구 - 한-EU FTA에 대한 중국과 비교를 중심으로 -

조인택 ( Intaik Cho ) 한국통상정보학회 2018 통상정보연구 Vol.20 No.4

본 연구는 한-EU FTA 체결 전·후에 한국의 주요 수출품인 지식집약형 제품의 수출경쟁력을 중국과 비교·분석하였다. 수출경쟁력을 비교 연구한 결과, EU 내 한·중 경쟁이 심화되는 제품은 광학/의료 측정·검사 정밀기기(90)와 플라스틱과 그 제품(39), 무기화화물(29)로써 한국의 수출 증가로 중국과의 경쟁이 심해지는 형태였으며 일반차량(87)은 중국과 수출 규모와 시장 점유율이 비슷해 경쟁이 심해지는 형태, 선박(89)은 중국의 수출 하락으로 경쟁 우위가 지속되는 형태, 보일러 기계류(84)와 전기기기 TV·VTR(85)은 시장점유율과 수출경쟁력이 동시에 낮아지고 있었다. 이러한 연구 결과는 한-EU의 FTA 체결이 한국 지식집약형 산업의 수출경쟁력 개선에 크게 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 첫째, EU에 대한 한국의 지식집약형 제품의 수출과 수출경쟁력은 FTA보다 EU의 경제 상황에 더 큰 영향을 받는 것을 의미하고 둘째, 한-EU FTA 효과가 낮기 때문에 경쟁국인 중국과의 수출 경쟁은 더욱 심해진다는 것을 의미한다. 그러므로 한국 정부는 FTA 협상 전략을 수정하고 제품별 협상 전략안을 마련해서 정부 정책의 변화를 바탕으로 FTA를 추진해야 한다. The study analyzed Korea's export competitiveness before and after the conclusion of the Korea-EU FTA by comparing Korea's knowledge-intensive products with China. Since the Korea-EU FTA, Korea has maintained a comparative advantage of H84, H87, H89, and H39. Products that increase competition in exports are H90, H39, and H29. The H87 is expected to become more competitive as it has a similar market share with Korea. Korea's H89 exports are increasing due to its comparative advantage, while H84 and H85 are declining in their export competitiveness. The results of the study show that the Korea-EU FTA does not have a significant impact on Korea's export competitiveness of knowledge-intensive industries. This means two things. First, Korea's export and export competitiveness of knowledge-intensive products to the EU means that it is more affected by the EU's economic situation than the FTA. Secondly, the Korea-EU FTA will be less effective, making it even harder to compete with China. Therefore, the Korean government should revise its FTA negotiation strategy and devise a product negotiation strategy to pursue the FTA based on changes in government policy.

한·EU FTA의 거시경제효과 비교,분석 : CGE 시뮬레이션 결과의 비판적 검토

신범철 ( Beom Cheol Cin ) 아시아.유럽미래학회 2010 유라시아연구 Vol.7 No.1

Since the Korean economic crisis in 1997, Korean government has place more emphasis on regional policy cooperation rather than multilateral cooperation in order to minimize negative effects of other FTAs. Since the first FTA with Chile took effect in 2004, three more FTAs, with Singapore, EFTA, and ASEAN, have come into effect but Korea is still negotiating free trading with Mexico, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, GCC, and Canada. Korean government has considered the Korea-EU FTA very important because the EU is the world``s largest economic bloc which includes 27 european countries with a total population of 487 million people. The EU is one of major trading partners to Korea. In 2007, the EU is the second largest export market to Korea and the fourth largest importing partner. Furthermore, the EU is also one of major foreign investors in Korea and its investment share is 41.2% of Korea``s total foreign direct investment in 2007. Despite the importance of the Korea-EU FTA, its economic effects have not been evaluated enough yet in contrast with much debate on the Korea-U.S. FTA. In particular, as most of studies did not consider the tariff cuts due to free trade movement during the 2000s in the world, the macroeconomic effects of the Korea-EU FTA has not been fully examined and the issue is still an open question. It has been argued that the economic effects of Korea-EU FTA would not be fully evaluated for lack of information about the content and negotiation process which should have been provided by government. This paper critically investigates the effects of a Korea-EU FTA using the CGE model under various scenarios including the Korea-U.S. FTA. In simulating such economic effects, the paper uses the GTAP static model based on a new GTAP data set. The paper also comparatively analyzes the macroeconomic effects of the bilateral FTA between Korea and EU can be caused by either tariff reduction or elimination of non-tariff trade barriers. The former economic effects can be examined quantitatively in the CGE model framework but the latter effects can be evaluated qualitatively but hardly analyzed quantitatively. This study will place more emphasis on quantitative effects of tariff reduction between Korea and EU, rather than those of elimination of non-tariff trade barriers. Most of all, the simulated results show that Korea``s real GDP would increase by 0.14-0.18% due to the Korea-EU FTA, under the assumption of the full elimination of tariffs in all agricultural and manufacturing sectors except service industries. On the other hand, under the same scenario additionally with reduction in trade barriers in service sectors by 50%, the real GDP effect of the Korea-EU FTA would be expected to increase by 0.54-0.86%. However, it is hard to measure exactly trade barriers to the service sectors because of lack in information and cross-country data on the trade barriers. For this reason, the paper uses Hoekman``s tariff equivalents(1995) in the service industries but Hoekman``s measures are still controversial. Considering the limitation to Hoekman``s measures, the simulation results for the economic effect of the Korea-EU FTA under the scinario would not be that credible in contrast to the government argument. Next, the CGE simulation results show that both the Korea-EU FTA and the Korea-U.S. FTA would not be complementary. The economic effects of the Korea-EU FTA would be offset by the Korea-U.S. FTA. This implies that there is no robust evidence for government argument that both the FTAs have complementary effects. Finally, the results show that the real GDP effect of the Korea-EU FTA could be smaller when the GTAP DB version 7 is used for the CGE model rather than when the GTAP version 6 is used. This implies that the economic effects of the Korea-EU FTA and the Korea-U.S. FTA as well would be smaller over time.

유럽연합과 비회원국간 체결된 조약의 유럽연합 회원국내 국내적 효력

서은아(Seo Eun Ah) 국제법평론회 2009 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.30

유럽연합(EU)은 공동통상정책(Common Commercial Policy)으로 현재 유럽연합의 회원국으로 가입한 27개국을 대표하여 통상정책을 수립하고 실시할 수 있는 권한을 갖게 되었다. EU의 공동통상정책에 있어서 우리나라와 관련된 문제로 한-EU FTA(자유무역협정)를 들 수 있다. 한-EU FTA에 관한 정책 및 경제에 관해서는 이미 경제학, 무역학 분야에서 많은 논의가 이루어지고 있다. 하지만 한-EU FTA가 체결된 후의 EU 회원국내 국내적 효력문제 중 EU가 비회원국과 체결한 국제조약과 각 회원국법의 충돌시 이를 어떻게 해결할 것인가에 대한 문제는 거의 다루어지지 않고 있다. 회원국과 EU간의 통상정책에 관한 합의는 쉽게 도달하지 못하고 있기 때문에, 회원국이 EU에 주권을 이양하였더라도 회원국과 EU간의 통상정책에 관하여 논란이 있는 한, 한-EU FTA가 체결된 후에도 회원국이 이를 위반할 가능성을 배제할 수는 없다. 상기의 문제에 관해 살펴보면 우리나라의 경우 EU를 상대로 한 국제협정 체결이기 때문에 회원국이 이를 위반하였더라도 EU 내부적으로 해결해야 할 문제이다. 그러나 경제적 손실의 절감 및 EU내 절차진행의 신속한 촉구가 이루어질 수 있도록 원용할 수 있는 원칙 또는 EU 내부적으로 회원국에게 이를 강제할 수 있는 원칙을 인지하는 것은 중요하다. 이는 우리나라가 자체적으로 어떠한 수단을 강구하지 않아도 EU 내부적으로 회원국에게 강제할 수 있다는 것을 인지할 수 있기 때문이다. EU의 경우 EU가 비회원국과 체결한 조약은 EC조약, 명령(regulations), 준칙(directives), 결정(decisions)과 함께 EU법의 법원으로 볼 수 있기 때문에, EU법에 대한 회원국 내에서의 국내적 효력문제를 우선 살펴보아야 한다. EU의 27개 회원국 중에 EU법을 자국에 수용하는 경우 이원론(dualism)이나 일원론(monism) 또는 완화된 이원론(mitigated dualism)을 취하는 국가가 있다. 이러한 EU법의 국내적 효력문제는 EU가 EU의 회원국이 아닌 국가와 조약을 체결할 경우 회원국의 법질서 내의 국내적 효력문제에도 그대로 나타난다. 따라서 이원론을 취하는 국가의 경우 EU가 비회원국과 체결한 국제조약에 대해 호의적이지 않을 가능성이 있다. 이 때 그러한 회원국에 대해 EU가 체결한 국제조약을 그 국가에 적용함에 있어서 원용될 수 있는 원칙은 직접효력의 원칙과 우위성의 원칙이 있다. 유럽연합 내부적으로 ECJ에 의해 직접효력의 원칙과 우위성 원칙을 세워나가면서 유럽공동체의 통합적 목적을 실현해 나가고 있는 것을 볼 수 있다. 곧 체결될 한-EU FTA의 경우와 같이 유럽연합과 비회원국간 체결하는 협정의 경우 유럽공동체의 일반 입법행위와는 다른 영역이다. 그러나 ECJ에 의해 이러한 협정이 회원국 내에 직접적 효력을 미칠 수 있다는 입장을 꾸준히 이어오고 있다. 그러므로 한-EU FTA가 체결된 이후에도 EU 각 회원국들의 이행위반이 발생하였을 경우 이에 대한 이행을 강제하는 절차의 마련보다는 EU 내부적인 해결의 선행이 우리나라의 국가적ㆍ경제적 손실을 줄일 수 있는 하나의 방안이 되리라 생각한다. The European Union(EU), with the EU’s common commercial policy, acquired the authority to form and implement commercial policy, on behalf of the 27 nations currently registered as the Member States of EU. Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement (Korea-EU FTA), for example, is an issue directly related to Korea, in terms of common commercial policy of the EU. There have been serious discussions already in the fields of economics and international trade pertaining to policy and economy of the Korea-EU FTA. However, the EU has rarely handled conflicts, which might arise between an international agreement and national laws concluded with Non-Member States on issues of national Member States’ effectiveness following the Korea-EU FTA. Since Member States and the EU are having trouble reaching an agreement on a commercial policy, although Member States have partly transferred their sovereignty to the EU, it is not plausible to completely rule out Member States’ violation upon conclusion of the Korea-EU FTA, as long as the conflict persist in commercial policy between the EU and its Member States. Judging from the above, Korea, for example, it is a matter that the EU must solve internally, even if Member States are in violation, as it is an international agreement against the EU. In order to achieve prompt procedural stimulation within the EU, and reduce economical loss however, it is important that the EU internally recognizes the principle, or the principle to evoke, which enables restraint of Member States. These are good measures as the EU can internally constrain Member States even if the Korean government does not explore means of its own. Regarding the EU, agreement concluded with Non-Member States, this cannot be regarded as a court of justice along with EC Treaty, regulations, directives and decisions. We should, therefore, first review the domestic legal effect issue relating to EU law within Member States. Among the 27 Member States of the EU, there are a number of nations that utilize dualism, monism or mitigated dualism in their acceptance of EU law. The problem of domestic legal effect in EU law will be displayed as it stands in Member States’ domestic legal effect when the EU concludes an agreement with Non-Member States. Therefore, for countries exercising dualism would limit benevolence in international agreements, concluded by the EU with Non-Member States. The principles that could be evoked when the EU applies concluded international agreement to the Member States are those of direct effect and supremacy. We can see that EU is internally realizing the common purpose of the EU while building the principle of direct effect and supremacy in accordance with ECJ. The agreement which is to be concluded between Non-Member States and EU is a different domain from regular legislation of the European Community, just like the case of the Korea-EU FTA, upon which an agreement shall be reached in the near future. ECJ, however, is pursuing its standpoint that these agreements could directly affect Member States. Therefore, it is a vital measure for the EU to establish a preceding solution internally, rather than preparing a procedure to restrict enforcement in the case of breaches of performance among Member States, even after the Korea-EU FTA is concluded. This would be one such device with which to reduce economic losses for Korea.

The Implications for the Korea-EU FTA

Jong Won Lee,Sang Hyup Shin 한국유럽학회 2006 유럽연구 Vol.24 No.-

이 논문에서는 유럽연합(EU)이 한국의 FTA 상대로서의 가능성을 심층 분석하고 있다. 이를 위해 우선 한국과 EU의 FTA가 한국 경제에 미칠 수 있는 경제적 효과를 기존의 연구결과를 중심으로 분석하였다. 또한 EU와의 FTA협정을 추진함에 있어서 예상되는 어려움 등을 이미 EU가 설립한 EU-Mexico FTA 협정을 분석함으로써 조사했다. 동시에 이 분석을 기초로 하여 한국이 EU와 FTA를 추진함에 있어서 바람직하다고 생각되는 전략을 소개하고 있다. In this study, we mainly discuss about the Korea-EU FTA which seems to be relatively easier to be completed than the Korea-USA FTA. For this, firstly we review the FTA policy of the EU and Korea. We also analyze the economic effects of the Korea-EU FTA, comparing it with the economic effects of the Korea-USA FTA. We will analyze how the USA-Mexico FTA was established. Finally, based on this research, the following suggestions are suggested to the Korean government for the successful completion of the Korea-EU FTA. Firstly, we should consider enough about our position towards the current trade-related issues which have been raised by both Korea and the EU for the FTA negotiations with the EU. Secondly, we should make efforts to increase the number of products made by Kaesung special economic area, which we will try to persuade the EU to recognize them as Korean made products at the negotiations. This is very important for the future economic relations between the North and South Korea. Thirdly, Korea should also well prepare our positions towards negotiations in service sector with the EU. This is because the EU has comparative advantages in the international market so that the EU is expected to maximize their benefits in the service sector in the negotiation for the Korea-EU FTA.

한국,EU FTA 체결후 무역 교류 사례

박정지 ( Jung Ji Park ),신정순 ( Jung Soon Shin ) 아시아.유럽미래학회 2016 유라시아연구 Vol.13 No.2

This paper examines the FTA effect after Korea-EU FTA, especially focused on the trade and foreign direct investment. Korea`s economy is driven largely by exports and import, and Europe is a major market for Korean goods. Korea has a high level of dependence on exports[trade]. Korea`s trade to gdp ratio is 49.96% in 2008, 55.74% in 2011, 53.92% in 2013. And Korea`s export/import to GNI ratiois 78.7% that rate is far higher than other advanced countries such as the United States (18.2%), Japan (30.1%) and Germany (73.8%). This study argues that have to pay attention to the strengthening the competitiveness of exports and trade for Korea`s economic growth. In this respect, Korea has emerged as a country speeding up the Free Trade Agreement partner compare with other asian countries, such as china and japan. The both government hope to relieve the trade imbalance between the Community and trade partners after FTA going into effect. In Korea some non-tariff barriers exist about market access, direct investment and trade in service. The Free Trade Agreement eliminates duties for industrial and agricultural goods in a progressive, step-by-step approach. The Korea-Chile FTA went into effect on April 01, 2004. After then FTAs with Singapore, EFTA, ASEAN, India and Peru, EU and US entered into force. Korea`s Export and Import over a span of six years around the two sides struck an agreement in 2010. We can find Eropean Union is Korea`s largest export and import market outside Asia and Middle East. We can noticed important relationship between the EU and the South Korea in trade activities. Therefore, this study is a case study of how did it influenced impact on trade flows after the FTA between Korea and EU. Korea-EU FTA Progress. The Korea-EU FTA is between Korea and the European Union, its member states. The negotiations began May 2007 and initialed 15 October 2009. The agreement has been provisionally applied since 1 July 2011. Import duties are near eliminated on all produce and there is deep liberalisation in trade in services. Those barriers be relaxed through Korea-EU FTA and as expected the foreign direct investment from EU and other developed countries increased. In the initial period after FTA, Korea currently has comparative advantage on EU``s products in EU market, but it is possible for Korea to lose its current competitiveness over them. So the Korean government needs to establish specific direction to improve industries for trade.

한-EU 자유무역협정 상 보조금 규정의 검토

성재호(SUNG, Jaeho),채은선(CHAE, Eunsun) 대한국제법학회 2011 國際法學會論叢 Vol.56 No.3

다수의 FTA가 자유무역을 강화하기 위하여 경쟁을 규정하고 있다. 한-EU FTA는 그 중에서도 구조 및 내용상 특징적인 측면을 지니고 있다. 한-EU FTA 경쟁 장은 제1부와 제2부로 구성되어 있으며, 제1부에서는 경쟁을 규정 하고 제2부에서 보조금을 규정하고 있는 것이다. 한-EU FTA 보조금 규정의구조적 특징은 EU의 경쟁정책이 반영된 것으로, 실질적인 내용에도 그 영향을 받은 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 대부분의 FTA 보조금 규정은 WTO 보조금협정 상 회원국의 권리를 확인 하는 것을 주된 내용으로 하고 있다. 한-EU FTA 또한 무역구제 장에 이러한 내용을 담고 있는데, 경쟁 장의 보조금규정은 FTA의 보조금규칙이라고 할 수 있는 내용을 담고 있다. 한-EU FTA 보조금 규정은 보조금의 용어, 정의 및 특정성 개념에 관해서는 WTO 보조금협정상의 것을 따르고 있다. 경쟁정책은 경쟁보장에 중점을 두고 있으며, 무역구제는 구제에 중점을 두고 있다. 보조금을 경쟁정책으로 다루게 된 것은 EU가 경쟁왜곡의 원인을 사인과 국가의 행위라는 두 가지 측면에서 바라본 데서 이해할 수 있다. 한-EU FTA는 EU의 보조금정책이 일부 반영된 결과 상대국에 대한 보조금통고의무를 WTO 보조금협정에 비하여 강화한 측면이 있다. 한-EU FTA 무역구제 장상의 보조금 관련 분쟁은 FTA의 분쟁해결에서 제외되며, WTO 분쟁해결제도를 이용하여 해결가능하다. 이에 한-EU FTA 경쟁 장에서 보조금을 규정하고 있음에도, 양국간 분쟁은 여전히 WTO 내에서 해결하여야 한다. 한-EU FTA가 WTO 보조금협정 상의 금지보조금 외에 추가적으로 두 가지 유형의 보조금을 금지하고 있으며, EU 국가보조와 WTO 보조금 간 개념차이가 있다는 점에서 보조금 관련 분쟁을 해결하는데 어려움이 있을 수 있다. EU의 경쟁정책이 한-EU FTA 보조금규정에 반영된 결과, 한-EU FTA는 보조금규정의 원칙으로 “당사국의 국제무역에 영향을 미치는 한 경쟁을 왜곡 하는 보조금을 구제 또는 제거하도록 노력할 것”을 요구하고 있다. ‘당사국의 국제무역에 대한 영향’과 ‘경쟁왜곡’은 WTO 보조금협정 및 대부분의 FTA에서는 보이지 않는 표현이므로, 그 판단 및 해석은 EU의 해석 및 적용을 참고 하여야 할 것이다. 한-EU FTA의 보조금 규정은 형식과 내용적인 측면에서 EU 경쟁정책의 특징을 지니고 있다. ECJ의 보조금관련 해석 및 적용을 참고하여, 한-EU FTA 보조금 규정의 특징을 분석 및 이해하고 이를 FTA 운영에 적용하는 지혜를 발휘하여야 할 것이다. The distinct feature of the Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter, “FTA”) is that it places both provisions of competition and subsidies under the same Chapter. This structural distinction seems to be greatly influenced by the EU’s competition policy, which affects the substantial content of the Agreement. The provision of subsidies under the FTA Agreement is a set of rules that simply identify the rights and obligations of the parties. Under the Korea-EU FTA, it treats the issue of subsidies in both Chapters on trade remedy and competition. The definition and nature of subsidies under the Korea-EU FTA are in accordance with the ones provided under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The competition policy focuses on the “fairness of competition,” whereas trade remedy focuses on the “remedy.” Such a difference originates from the view of the EU that the distortion of competition under the common market could be found in the conduct of either private entities or member states. As a consequence of reflecting the EU’s policy on subsidies in the Korea-EU FTA, the duty of notification seems to be more intensified, compared to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Under the Chapter on trade remedy, it reads that the disputes on subsidies may not be brought before the dispute settlement system provided under the FTA. Rather, it may be brought before the WTO dispute settlement system. Thus, it is the WTO that still has to handle the disputes on subsidies between Korea and the EU. Moreover, there is a conceptual difference between the two types of subsidies that are prohibited under the WTO and the provisions of state-aid and subsidies under the EU law. Under the Chapter on competition, “[t]he Parties agree to use their best endeavours to remedy or remove through the application of their competition laws or otherwise, distorition of competition caused by subsidies in so far as they affect international trade.” In interpreting the term “distortion of competition caused by subsidies in so far as they affect international trade,” the provision of subsidies under the EU law should be put into consideration. Distortion of competition within the EU is found when a member state government selectively provides the state aid. However, such selectivity of the provision of state aid seems to be not all that different to the nature of “specificity” under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In sum, the EU’s competition policy is well reflected in the provision of subsidies under the Korea-EU FTA in the sense that it is treated under the Chapter on competition. It is important to understand the characteristics of the provision of subsidies under the Korea-EU FTA in order to operate effectively.