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...

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.

한-EU FTA 주요쟁점 - 원산지 규정과 무역에 대한 기술장벽을 중심으로

강준하 국제거래법학회 2008 國際去來法硏究 Vol.17 No.1

European Union(EU) has been one of the most important trade partners for Korea. EU ranked 2nd biggest partner for Korea in terms of trade volume in 2006. Korea-EU FTA is expected to strengthen both Parties’s economic relationship. This paper is to review legal issues in Korea-EU FTA, particularly focusing on Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT) and Rules of Origin(ROO). With regard to TBT, outstanding issues include standards on automobiles, requirements on emissions of vehicles, and regulations on chemicals(REACH). These requirements and regulations are regarded as trade barriers on one hand and also regarded as necessary measures to protect peoples’ health and safety and environment on the other. Therefore, it is desirable to seek a way to harmonize both goals. One possible way is to allow more time for exporters to comply with the requirements. Mutual recognition on each Party’s standards can be also considered to be an option. As to ROO, key issues are conferring origin status on products from Kaesong Industrial Complex(KIC) and establishing Product Specific Rules of Origin(PSR). In other FTAs that Korea has concluded with other countries, Korea has successfully inserted provisions on KIC allowing preferential tariff treatment on products manufactured in KIC. In order to get political support in Congress, KIC issue should be reflected in Korea-EU FTA. Product Specific Rules of origin(PSR) is also an important issue in ROO negotiation. EU’s position on PSR is to have restrictive ROO requiring high level of regional contents. Since EU’s requirements prevent Korea’s major export items to EU such as steel, chemical products, machinery and electrical Equipments, Korea might not accommodate EU’s position. Considering that the purpose of FTA is to facilitate trade between the Parties, ROO should provide optional rules for exports to satisfy the requirements. Restrictive ROO may also hinder enterprises’ global sourcing trend. EU는 27개국으로 이루어진 경제공동체이며, 우리나라와는 중요한 교역상대이기도 하다. EU와의 FTA체결은 우리나라에게 경제적 측면에서 새로운 가능성을 제공하고, 새로운 경제성장의 동력이 될 것으로 기대된다. 이 논문은 EU와의 FTA 협상의 법적 쟁점 중 기술장벽과 원산지 규정의 주요 쟁점에 대하여 살펴보고, 한-EU FTA의 성공적 타결을 위한 제언을 하고자 한다. 기술장벽과 관련하여 자동차 기술표준, 배기가스 규제, 신화학물질 규제 등이 특히 문제 된다. 이러한 기준들은 무역장벽으로 인식되는 한편, 국민의 안전과 건강, 환경보호를 위하여 시행되고 있는 제도들이기도 하다. 따라서 교역활성화와 국민건강 및 안전·환경보호라는 목표를 어떻게 조화시킬 것인지에 지혜를 모아야 할 것이다. 원산지 규정과 관련하여, 개성공단에서 생산된 상품에 대한 특혜관세 부여 문제, 품목별 원산지 기준 등이 주요 쟁점으로 특히 문제되고 있다. 개성공단 생산제품에 대하여 특혜관세를 부여하는 문제는 지금까지 우리나라가 체결한 FTA에서 역외가공방식으로 인정해 왔고, 개성공단 문제가 한-EU FTA에 반영되지 않으면 국회에서 비준동의를 받기가 쉽지 않다는 점에서 협상 마지막까지 EU측을 설득하여야 할 것이다. 품목별 원산지 기준과 관련하여, EU측은 높은 수준의 부가가치 기준을 요구하고 있는 바, 최근 기업들의 Global Sourcing 경향을 반영하여 합리적인 수준에서 기준이 설정되어야 할 것이다. FTA의 목적이 교역을 활성화하는데 있다는 점을 고려할 때, 엄격한 원산지 기준은 FTA의 정신을 훼손하는 것이라고 말할 수 있다. 품목별 원산지 협상은 개별 품목에 대한 원산지 기준을 정해야 하기 때문에 많은 시간을 요구하는 바, 전체 협상과의 진도를 고려할 때, 필요하다면 회기간 회의를 통하여 쟁점을 정리해 나가야 할 필요성이 있다.

한-EU FTA 발효 이후 양자간 투자통계의 비교분석

조양현 연세대학교 동서문제연구원 2021 동서연구 Vol.33 No.4

It is highly demanded that investment activities should be increased to get over depressed economic conditions and achieve sustainable economic development based on economic structural problems due to standstill consumption, constraint budget expenditure and sluggish exports under the Korean economy. In this regard, this paper is seeking to analyze comparatively investment statistics toward European Union (EU) economies which have been major economic cooperation partners with Korea, and suggest its policy implications. In comparison with major precedent researches on factor analysis of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) determinants and economic effect for the Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA), this paper analyze empirically to compare by country and industry about FDI outflows and FDI inflows between Korea and EU economies during 2011-2020 after implementation of the Korea-EU FTA. The Korea-EU investment statistics indicates that FDI outflows of Korea toward EU economies were USD 17.1 billion, and FDI inflows of EU economies into Korea were USD 18.5 billion, so Investment Surplus recorded USD 1.4 billion during 2011-2015. In addition, FDI outflows of Korea toward EU economies were USD 39.7 billion, and FDI inflows of EU economies into Korea were USD 27.2 billion; hence Investment Deficit turned into USD 12.5 billion during 2016-2020. Summing up main features based on empirical analysis by country and industry about the FDI outflows of Korea toward EU economies, there is evidence that major investments concentrate on not only Luxemburg and the United Kingdom by country, but also Finance and Real Estate by industry; As for the FDI inflows into Korea by EU economies, another major investments concentrate on not only Malta and the Netherlands by country, but also Finance and Chemical Engineering by industry. As a result of the analysis, this paper suggests that it is necessary to diversify country and industry of bilateral investments in the empirical perspectives after implementation of the Korea-EU FTA. In particular, systematic policy and strategy by government and company to attract FDI inflows should be taken into consideration, because FDI inflows has been an essential contributor for sustainable economic development through transfer of know-how and technology, creation of production and employment, improvement of productivity, and so on. 우리나라는 소비활동 정체, 재정지출 한계, 수출 부진 등의 경제 구조적인 문제로 인해 침체된 경제여건을 극복하고 지속적인 경제성장을 위하여 기업의 투자증대가 절실히 요구되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 우리나라의 주요 경제협력 대상지역인 EU 경제권에 대한 투자통계를 비교분석하고, 정책적인 시사점을 제시하고자 한다. 해외직접투자의 결정요인과 한-EU FTA의 경제효과에 관한 선행연구와는 달리, 본 연구에서는 한-EU FTA 발효 이후 2011~2020년 기간, 양자간 투자실적의 실증분석을 위해 FDI 유출 및 유입의 통계자료를 국가와 산업에 관하여 비교하는 분석방법론을 채택했다. 2011~2015년 기간, 우리나라의 EU 경제권에 대한 투자유출실적(누계기준)은 171억 달러, 투자유입실적(누계기준)은 185억 달러로 투자수지는 14억 달러 흑자를 기록했다. 그러나 2016~2020년 기간에는 우리나라의 EU 경제권에 대한 투자유출실적이 397억 달러, 투자유입실적은 272억 달러로 투자수지는 125억 달러 적자로 전환되었다. 한-EU 투자통계의 실증분석에서 나타난 국가별 및 산업별 주요 특징을 요약하면, 우리나라의 EU 경제권에 대한 투자유출실적의 경우 룩셈부르크, 영국 등의 국가, 금융 및 보험, 부동산 등의 산업에 집중된 반면, 우리나라에 대한 EU 경제권의 투자유입실적의 경우 몰타, 네덜란드 등의 국가, 금융 및 보험, 화학제품 등의 산업에 집중된 것으로 분석된다. 한-EU 투자통계 분석결과를 바탕으로 정책적인 시사점을 제시하면, 한-EU FTA 발효 이후 양자간 투자실적이 특정 국가 및 산업에 집중되는 경향을 나타내고 있어 투자 다변화가 필요하며, 외국인직접투자(FDI 유입)는 노하우 및 기술 이전, 생산 및 고용 유발, 생산성 향상 등을 통해 지속적인 경제성장이 가능하므로 외국인직접투자 유입정책에 대한 정부 및 기업의 체계적인 추진전략이 더욱 요구된다.

한국・EU FTA 체결후 무역 교류 사례

박정지,신정순 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 FTA의 법적 쟁점

김대인(KIM,Dae In) 유럽헌법학회 2011 유럽헌법연구 Vol.10 No.-

2010년 5월 4일 한-EU FTA의 비준동의안이 국회본회의를 통과하였고 동 협정은 2011년 7월 1일부터 잠정발효되었다. 이 글에서는 한-EU FTA의 협정내용 중에서 특히 ‘정부조달’(government procurement)분야를 중심으로 살펴보고자 한다. 한-EU FTA에 따라 EU의 민자사업에 우리나라 기업이 진출할 수 있는 기회가 확대된 점은 고무적이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 기회가 실질화되기 위해서는 다음과 같은 점들에 대해서 보다 정확한 검토가 이루어져야 한다. 첫째, EU 공공조달지침상 민간사업자 선정방식에 대한 보다 정확한 이해가 필요하다. 특히 ‘경쟁적 대화절차’ (competitive dialogue procedure)에 대한 이해가 필요하다. 둘째, 민간투자사업이 실제로 시행되는 단위가 어디인지, 여기에 적용되는 국내법제는 무엇인지에 대한 보다 명확한 이해가 필요하다. 다음으로 EU 공공조달지침의 적용을 받지 않는 부분에 대해서 EU 회원국 국내법에서 어떻게 규율하고 있는지도 유의해서 볼 필요가 있다. 우리나라 기업이 이러한 부분은 직접 진출은 어렵지만 현지법인을 설립하거나 현지업체의 하수급업체로 진출해보는 것은 시도해볼만 하기 때문이다. 또한 EU 공공조달지침의 적용하한선 이상의 부분이라고 하더라도 개별 회원국들은 EU 공공조달지침에 반하지 않는 범위 내에서 상당한 재량권을 갖고 국내입법을 할 수 있도록 되어 있으므로, 각 개별회원국들의 공공조달 법제가 어떻게 되어 있는지에 대해서 구체적으로 검토하는 것이 필요하다고 할 수 있다. ‘인천광역시 지역건설산업활성화 촉진조례’와 같이 시장이 지방자치단체가 발주하는 건설사업에 대해 지역건설업자의 하도급비율 또는 공동도급비율을 ‘권장할 수 있다’고 규정(제8조)하고 있는 경우는 입찰참가업체에 대한 해당 시장의 권장사항일 뿐 강제적인 의무도급제가 아니므로 한-EU FTA와 상충되지 않는다. 그러나 이처럼 조례자체는 한-EU FTA와 상충되지 않는다고 하더라도 이에 따라 실제로 인천광역시에서 284억원 이상의 공사에 대해서 지역의무공동도급제도의 내용을 담은 입찰을 실시한다면 이는 한-EU FTA와 상충 될 가능성이 여전히 남아있다는 점을 유의해야 한다. “조달의 목적달성을 위해서 필수적인 경우에는” 과거실적의 지리적 제한을 예외적으로 허용할 수 있다고 규정하고 있으므로 이러한 예외규정을 적절하게 활용하는 것도 필요하다. 다음으로 한-EU FTA의 법적 효력과 직접적인 관련이 있는 것은 아니지만 한-EU FTA를 우리나라 법제개혁의 계기로 삼는 것이 필요하다고 생각된다. EU의 ‘경쟁적 대화 제도’와 권리구제절차 등도 우리나라에 주는 시사점이 적지 않다고 하겠다. The Korea-EU FTA officially came into effect from July 1 of 2011. This paper examines the ‘government procurement’ division of the Korea-EU FTA. With the adoption of Korea-EU FTA, Korean enterprises has more chances to enter into Public-Private Partnership (PPP) market in EU. However, if theses chances would be materialized, following issues should be dealt in detail. First, contracting mechanism of PPP in EU Public Procurement Directive, such as ‘competitive dialogue procedure’, should be properly understood. Second, entities which conduct PPP contracts and PPP related domestic laws and regulations should be identified. Member states’ domestic laws and regulations below threshold of EU Public Procurement Directive should be carefully examined. Though Korean enterprises will have difficulties to enter into this (below threshold) market, it is possible to enter into this marker as a local subsidiary or a sub-contractor of local enterprises. As regards public procurement market above threshold, each member state can have own legislations which are compatible with EU Public Procurement Directive. Therefore, careful examination of each member states’ domestic laws and regulations is indispensible. ‘Incheon City’s Ordinance on boosting of local construction company’ provides that ratio of sub-contracting or joint contracting with ‘local construction company’ should be recommended. This provision is not mandatory in nature, therefore this provision itself is not contradictory to the Korea-EU FTA. However, if the Incheon City conducts restricted tendering with local enterprises’ favor, it remains the possibility of incompatibility with the Korea-EU FTA. It is necessary to consider Korea-EU FTA as a means to reform of Korean public procurement law regime. EU’s ‘competitive dialogue procedure’ and remedies system shows many lessons to Korea.