미일 무역협정 체결과 효과에 대한 일고찰

김용민 한일경상학회 2022 韓日經商論集 Vol.95 No.-

Purpose: The purpose of this study is a discussion of Trade Agreement in products and the Digital Trade Agreementbetween US and Japan. This study contains an investigation of the process and the highlight of the agreement. Bythe trade agreement, US has obtained the Third biggest agricultural market which came after the decline in thenation’s trade deficit with Japan and the opening of agricultural market. In contrast to US, the aim of Japan’s tradeagreement was avoiding tax-increasing on cars and its components. In this study, the issues and arguments causedby these different aims of the agreement will be analyzed. Research design, data, and methodology: The contents of the study are 1) an investigation on the details ofUS-Japan Trade Agreement, 2) an analysis of the highlight of Trade Agreement in products and the Digital TradeAgreement, 3) a comparison of importation of tax-decreased products by the trade agreement, 4) an investigation onthe safeguard of Japan which was instituded during the trade situation, 5) the conclusion of this study. The contentsof the study has its value in analyzing the issues and the arguments of these trade agreements. Results: The comparison of Japan’s importation with US between 2019 and 2021 is as follows. The percentages offoods and chemical products did not show meaningful change. The figure in ordinary machines and Electric deviceshas decreased. Meats and grains account for the 62.5% of total food which were 452.4 billion yens and 516 billionyens respectively. US’s importaion with Japan after the agreements accounts for about 5%(6.6 billion dollars) of totalimportaion with Japan. The importation percentages were ranked as follows: Ordinary machines, components ofnon-metal products, electric devices, optical instruments, metal products. The rates of these products have notchanged in a meaningful figures. Only a few products have changed. The figures of ordinary machines, electricdevices, rubbers have decreased. Implications: The trade between US and Japan was enlarged after the trade agreements between two countries. USoppressed Japan in order to compensate a loss which was caused by withdrawal from the TPP. Japan approached tothe agreement with US to avoid tax-increasing in cars and its components. This study is challenging since the studywas conducted not long after the agreements. However, the results in this study are valuable as one of the firstresearchs about the effect of US-Japan trade agreements.

WTO 「무역원활화협정」의 내용과 향후 이행과제

류병운 ( Byung Woon Lyou ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.3

Trade facilitation’ means, through “the simplification and harmonization ofinternational trade procedures” and with increase of transparency of the procedures,securing smooth and efficient flow or to reduce trade procedure barriers (TPBs) ininternational trade. The Agreement on Trade Facilitation was adopted at the 9th WTO MinisterialConference as part of “Bali Package” in December, 2013. The new agreement, which wasincorporated to the WTO, a powerful enforcement organization with dispute settlementsystem, is expected to boost the world economy more than one billion dollars by tradeexpansion as well as reducing trade procedure costs. The Agreement promotes the transparency in trade procedure by establishing specificduties of Member States about the declaration and availability of important information,information notice, chance of comment and consulting service, advance ruling, and theprocedures of appealing and review. Also, the Agreement contributes to increaserationality and efficiency in customs clearance and release procedure, with providing theprinciple limits the size of fees and charges to the approximate cost of the servicesrendered, and by clarifying obligations of Member States on allowance of pre-arrivalprocessing, instalment of electronic payment, separation of release from final determination of customs duties, risk management, post-clearance audit, introduction ofauthorized operators, special handling for expedited shipments, etc. The Agreement demands minimizing and simplifying documents and processes of theimport/export customs in standardized forms, and tolerates to submit copies whengovernment authorities already have the original documents. This Agreement introducessingle window system, which allows one time submission of related customs documentsto a single counter, and bans pre shipment inspection to evaluate customs tariff and rate. The Agreement prohibited mandatory use of customs broker too. The Agreement specifies the freedom of transit in GATT Article V by encouragingMember States to abolish voluntary restrictions on transit, prohibiting Member Statesnew charges that are additional to those administrative limited to the cost of providingthe transit service, requiring Member States to allow advance filing and processing oftransit documents, and ensuring formalities and documentation requirements on trafficin transit to identify the goods and to ensure fulfillment of transit requirements. Also,this Agreement provides the cooperation system of customs office, which allows MemberStates to respect the confidentiality of information as well as to share the information todevelop systematic cooperation and voluntary compliance systems. Such voluntarycompliance systems would allow importers to self-correct without penalty, whileintroduce stronger measures for non-compliant traders. To secure authentically the expected economic effect through Trade facilitation, theexertion from both of WTO and each member state are necessary. The WTO should seekfor concrete ways to develop simplification, harmonization and increase transparency intrade procedures including the suggestion of practical model documents for theAgreement or standard forms for electronic documents. Also, the WTO shouldcontinuously remove the obstacles against trade flow in the areas other than theAgreement on Trade Facilitation. For example the WTO needs to complete the negationon harmonized rules of origin. Republic of Korea is one of the countries in Category A, which is designated forimplementation upon entry into force of the Agreement, is expected to play a leadingrole in substantial application of the Agreement. To apply and implement the Agreementdomestically, Korea needs to revise or establish related rules and systems for institutionof national committee of Trade Facilitation, escalation system for inquiry, the procedures of appealing and review, and integrated framework for border administrative agencies. The existing FTAs, of which Korea is one of the parties, needs to be improved in a wayof the Agreement on Trade Facilitation plus. Using outstanding information technology, Korea is expected to play a leading role indevelopment, standardization, and international distribution of the systems forimplementation of the Agreement. Especially Korea should accelerate the negotiationsand developments to share harmonized infrastructure systems and programs with maintrade partners like China, U.S.A., the EU, and Japan. It is necessary to distribute activelythe infrastructure systems and programs, which were developed or initiated by Korea,to the developing countries by the way of technical support and capacity building. AlsoKorea may support the developing countries to build infrastructures for electroniccustoms clearance systems and programs, and to support Internet base information andcommunication system as ODA to the countries.

Changes in Stock Market Co-movements between Contracting Parties after the Trade Agreement and Their Implications

안소영,배연호 한국무역학회 2023 Journal of Korea trade Vol.27 No.1

Purpose – The study of co-movements between stock markets is a crucial area of finance and has recently received much interest in a variety of studies, especially in international finance. Stock market co-movements are a major phenomenon in financial markets, but they are not necessarily independent of the real market. Several studies support the idea that bilateral trade linkages significantly impact stock market correlations. Motivated by this perspective, this study investigates whether real market integration due to trade agreements brings about financial market integration in terms of stock market co-movement. Design/methodology – Over the 10 free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by the United States, using a dynamic conditional correlations (DCC) multivariate GARCH (MGRACH) model, we empirically measure the degree of integration by finding DCCs between the US market and the partner country’s market. We then track how these correlations evolve over time and compare the results before and after trade agreements. Findings – According to the empirical results, there are positive return spillover effects from the US market to eight counterpart equity markets, except Jordan, Morocco, and Singapore. Especially Mexico, Canada, and Chile have large return spillover effects at the 1% significance level. All partner countries of FTAs generally have positive correlations with the US over the entire period, but the size and variance are somewhat different by country. Meanwhile, not all countries that signed trade agreements with the United States showed the same pattern of stock market co-movement after the agreement. Korea, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Singapore show increasing DCC patterns after trade agreements with the US. However, Canada, Australia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco do not show different patterns before and after trade agreements in DCCs. These countries generally have the characteristic of relatively lower or higher co-movements in stock markets with the US before the signing of the FTAs. Originality/value – To our knowledge, few studies have directly examined the linkages between trade agreements and stock markets. Our approach is novel as it considers the problem of conditional heteroscedasticity and visualizes the change of correlations with time variations. Moreover, analyzing several trade agreements based on the United States enables the results of cross-country pairs to be compared. Hence, this study provides information on the degree of stock market integration with countries with which the United States has trade agreements, while simultaneously allowing us to track whether there have been changes in stock market integration patterns before and after trade agreements.

파리협정 이후 중국의 기후변화 대응 관련 법제 연구 -탄소 배출권 거래제도를 중심으로-

강문경 중국지역학회 2020 중국지역연구 Vol.7 No.2

The international society adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Paris agreement in 2015 after signing on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNFCCC) in June 1992 to cope with the problem of climate change according to global warming. The Paris agreement is expected to be enacted in January 2021 and aims to maintain the increase of the average temperature of the earth by lower than two degrees through the reduction of greenhouse emissions and limit it to 1.5 degrees. Thus, all countries that signed on the Paris agreement are given the duty to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gas voluntarily. China is a country directly involved in joining the Paris agreement, making a lot of effort to keep the promise of the implementation by setting the objective of the reduction of carbon dioxide to 60 to 65% compared to that as of 2005 by 2030. In particular, it is operating carbon emissions trading exchanges in eight provinces and cities, adopting the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme in 2013, and carbon emissions trading is actively done. Also, China has enacted laws and technical norms, such as “Carbon Emission Report Management Measures” and “Interim Measures for the Management of Carbon Emissions Trading” as the laws related to carbon emissions trading and is gathering opinions, announcing “Interim Regulations on the Management of Carbon Emissions Trading” on April 3, 2019 to standardize carbon emissions trading, improve the control and management of greenhouse gas emissions, promote the ecological civilization and promote the sustainable development of the economic society. Based on the Chinese government’s effort, as China showed a clear decreasing tendency of greenhouse gas emissions since 2015, China is putting spur to the preparation of legislation and the maintenance of the system to further expand the carbon emissions trading market nationwide. Meanwhile, after the Paris agreement came into effect in 2021, each country should make a lot of effort to implement the reduction objectives set by itself, and the Republic of Korea, a country directly involved in that cannot be an exception. Currently, the Republic of Korea also operating the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme in the same form as that of China; however, it is not revitalized due to a few circumstances. And yet, it is judged that centering around the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme, investigating China’s laws related to climate change response and making an active effort to revitalize the Republic of Korea’s carbon emissions trading market, analyzing the operation status. will help implement the duty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the future. 국제사회는 지구온난화에 따른 기후변화 문제에 대응하고자 1992년 6월 기후변화협약을 체결한 이후로 1997년 교토의정서(Kyoto Protocol), 2015년 파리협정을 채택하였다. 파리협정은 2021년 1월 시행 예정으로 온실가스 배출량 감소를 통하여 지구의 평균기온의 상승폭을 2도보다 낮은 수준으로 유지하고, 1.5도로 제한하는 것을 노력하는 것을 그 목표로 한다. 따라서 파리협정에 서명한모든 국가는 자발적으로 온실가스 감축 노력을 할 의무가 부과된다. 중국은 파리협정 가입 당사국으로서 2030년까지 이산화탄소의 감축 목표를2005년도 대비 60∼65%로 설정하여 이행 약속을 지키기 위하여 많은 노력을기울이고 있다. 특히 2013년 탄소 배출권 거래제도를 도입하여 현재 8개의 성⋅ 시에서 탄소 배출권 거래소를 운영하고 있으며, 탄소 배출권 거래 또한 활발하게 이루어지고 있다. 또한 중국은 탄소 배출권 거래 관련 입법으로서 「탄소배출보고관리판법」(碳排放报告管理办法), 「탄소배출권거래임시판법」(碳排放权交易 管理暂行办法)등 법제 및 기술 규범 등을 제정하고 있으며, 2019년 4월 3일탄소 배출권 거래를 규범화하고 온실가스 배출에 대한 통제와 관리를 강화하며생태 문명 건설을 추진하고 경제 사회의 지속가능한 발전을 추진하기 위하여「탄소배출권거래관리임시조례」(碳排放权交易管理暂行条例)를 발표하여 현재 의견 수렴 중에 있다. 중국 정부의 이러한 노력을 바탕으로 중국은 2015년 이후 온실가스 배출량 에 있어 뚜렷한 감소 추세를 보이고 있는 만큼 중국은 더 나아가 탄소 배출권거래 시장을 전국 규모로 확대하기 위한 법제 마련 및 제도 정비에 박차를 가하고 있다. 한편 2021년 파리협약 발효 이후에는 각국은 스스로가 정한 감축 목표를 이행하기 위하여 많은 노력을 기울여야 하며, 가입당사국인 한국 또한 예외가 될수 없다. 현제 한국도 중국과 같은 형태의 탄소 배출권 거래제도를 운영 중에있지만 여러 사정으로 활성화되지 못하고 있다. 그러나 탄소 배출권 거래제도를 중심으로 한 중국의 기후변화 대응 관련 법제를 고찰하고, 운영현황을 분석하여 한국의 탄소 배출권 거래 시장의 활성화를 위해 적극 노력한다면 향후 이산화탄소 배출 감소 의무 이행에 도움이 될 것으로 사료된다

勞組代表者의 단체협약체결권에 관한 判決의 부당성대상판결: 문화방송사건, 대법원 2005. 3. 11. 선고2003다27429 판결

박승두 경희대학교 법학연구소 2014 경희법학 Vol.49 No.1

The Constitution guarantees the labor’s three primary rights and Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act specifies the exercise of labor’s three primary rights. Here, one important issue arises regarding the right of Collective Bargaining; the clause 1, article 33 of the Constitution says “employees has the independent right to organize, bargain collectively and of collective action” while the clause 1, article 29 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act says “the trade union’s representative has the authority for making collective agreements and negotiate with user group on behalf of labor union or its members.” Here, a question arises whether the authority for making collective agreements is the exclusive right of trade union’s representative or union members can establish sub-provision to limit the right of trade union’s representative. The general view for this in Korea is that they can limit the right of trade union’s representative as the right of collective bargaining is the right of union members, and trade union’s representative is delegated to exercise the right. Still, some argue that union members can not limit the right of trade union’s representative as he/she is authorized to exercise under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The judicial precedent of this thesis shows the practice that trade union’s representative conducts talks with users by the result of the collective bargaining and goes through approval in the general council is violating the clause 1, article 29 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act because it makes the authority for making collective agreement nominal limiting the right of trade union’s representative to make collective agreements. However, I think this the Supreme Courts’ Judgement contradicts the general understanding of the law. First, the authority of trade union’s representative comes from labor’s three primary rights defined by Constitutional Law, and the trade union members can exercise the right through the medium of trade union’s representative, which means the right of collective bargaining belongs to union members not it’s trade union’s representative. Second, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates that the trade union’s representative can sign an agreement for the trade union or its members. This means that the right of collective bargaining and authority for making collective agreements is not the exclusive right of trade union’s representative as the act specifies that the authority is given for ‘the trade union or its members’. Accordingly, the authority of trade union’s representative can not be exercised without consent of union members. If we see that the act guarantees the exclusive right of trade union’s representative, it violates Constitution which satisfies the condition for its nullification. Third, the main reason for this issue to arise was untrustworthy attitude of trade union’s representative when bargaining. This issue arose as the user does not bargain faithfully because he/she prefers threats or conciliate the untrustworthy attitude to normal bargaining. Accordingly, it is imperative that the right of employee guaranteed by the Constitution should be acknowledged and respected. 헌법은 단체교섭권을 보장하고 있고, 이 정신을 이어받아 노동조합 및 노동관계 조정법은 단체교섭권의 행사에 관하여 구체적으로 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 노조 대표자가 가지는 단체협약체결권이 자신의 배타적인 권리인가 아니면 조합원이 부여한 권리이므로 조합원이 노동조합 규약이나 단체협약으로 제한하는 규정을 둘 수 있느냐 하는 것이 문제된다. 학설은 제한할 수 있다는 절대 다수설과 제한할 수 없다는 소수설로 나뉘어 있다. 대상판결도 노조 대표자가 단체교섭의 결과에 따라 사용자와 단체협약의 내용을 합의한 후 다시 협약안의 가부에 관하여 조합원총회의 의결을 거쳐야 한다는 것은 대표자의 단체협약체결권한을 전면적ㆍ포괄적으로 제한함으로써 사실상 단체협약체결권한을 형해화하는 것이어서 노조법 제29조 제1항에 반한다고 판시하였다. 그러나 이 판결은 타당하지 않다고 생각한다. 첫째, 단체교섭권의 본질에 반한다. 노조 대표자의 권한은 헌법에서 규정한 근로자의 단체교섭권에서 연유하는 것으로, 이는 일반 조합원의 권리이지 노조 대표자의 권리가 아니다. 둘째, 단체협약체결권의 법적 성격에 대한 오해로, 단체교섭과 단체협약체결권은 노조 대표자의 배타적 권한이 아니라 ‘그 노조 또는 조합원을 위하여’ 가지는 권한이다. 따라서 노조 대표자의 권한은 조합원의 명시적 의사에 반하여 행사할 수 없다. 셋째, 자가당착에 빠진 형해화론이다. 즉, 대상판결은 조합원총회의 의결을 거치게 하는 것은 대표자의 단체협약체결권한을 전면적ㆍ포괄적으로 제한함으로써 사실상 단체협약체결권한을 형해화한다 보았다. 본래 단체교섭권과 단체협약체결권은 근로자의 권리이고, 대표자에게 이를 제한하더라도 이 권리가 제한받는 것은 아니다. 역으로 노조 대표자가 조합원의 의사를 무효로 하는 것은 근로자의 단체협약체결권한 나아가 단체교섭권 전체를 형해화하는 자가당착에 빠진다. 이 문제는 노조 대표자만 회유하면 된다는 사용자의 그릇된 자세에서 기인한 노동조합 대표자의 불성실한 교섭태도에서 비롯되었다. 바람직한 노사관계와 단체교섭 관행의 정착을 위해서는 헌법에서 규정한 근로자의 권리를 제대로 인정하여야 한다.

The Economic Potential of an India-US Free Trade Agreement

( Emiko Fukase ),( Will Martin ) 세종대학교 경제통합연구소 2016 Journal of Economic Integration Vol.31 No.4

This paper explores the economic implication of a potential free trade agreement between India and the United States. The overall impacts are likely to be positive for the United States and India. While gains from trade creation would be offset by trade diversion on the import side, both countries would gain from improved access on the export side. The United States is likely to gain largely through terms of trade improvements for its goods and services, as initial protection in India remains relatively high. India would experience an expansion of exports and output, particularly in textiles and apparel. The paper explores how the effects of an India-United States free trade agreement might be affected by prior free trade agreements. Adding an India-United States free trade agreement to prior agreements would tend to bring additional welfare benefits to both countries. India would also gain substantially if it concluded a free trade agreement with the United States and then extended it to other partners. The results suggest that an India- United States free trade agreement might become a building block toward more liberal trade regimes.

디지털무역 자유화를 위한 지역무역협정의 성과와 과제

정순태 한국무역연구원 2019 무역연구 Vol.15 No.5

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine how regional trade agreements are being utilized as alternative means to achieve digital trade liberalization, and whether digital trade-related provisions of regional trade agreements can be generalized as global rules for digital trade liberalization. Design/methodology/approach - To analyze the relationship between digital trade liberalization and regional trade agreements, this paper uses literature research and investigates the statistics and agreement documents in the WTO RTA database. In addition, it proposes alternatives to address the limitations of digital trade liberalization through regional trade agreements. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the number of regional trade agreements that include digital trade-related provisions is steadily increasing. Regional trade agreements are used as an alternative means to achieve the liberalization of digital trade, and provide international standards for establishing digital trade rules. Second, Regional trade agreements have problems such as discrimination against non-member countries, spaghetti-bowl phenomenon, and these problems can be an obstacle to the development of digital trade. Thus, measures should be taken to address these limitations of regional trade agreements so that global digital trade liberalization can be achieved. Research implications or Originality – Regarding the liberalization of digital trade, Korea should also actively participate in international discussions related to digital trade, and improve the domestic systems that meets international standards.

TBT협정과 SPS협정의 관계 -무역기술장벽조치와 위생검역조치의 구분 기준에 관한 검토를 중심으로-

김현정,이길원 충남대학교 법학연구소 2024 法學硏究 Vol.35 No.3

TBT와 SPS 협정은 각각 고유한 의무가 포함되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 적용 범위를 정의하는 방식에 있어서도 차이가 있다. 하지만, 이 두 협정은 모두 인간 또는 동·식물의 건강과 같은 문제를 다루는 비관세조치를 규제 대상으로 한다. 그리고 비차별의무, 국제 표준의 사용, 투명성 보장 등 유사한 의무가 포함되어 있다. 이러한 양자 간 특수한 관계를 고려해 볼 때, 두 협정의 규제 대상이 되는 조치가 무엇이고, 양자를 구분할 수 있는 기준이 무엇인지 때로 확인하기 어렵기도 하다. 다시 말해, TBT협정은 건강 보호를 목적으로 하는 조치를 포함한 기술 규정 등에 광범위하게 적용되기 때문에 건강 보호를 목적으로 하는 조치를 규정하고 있는 SPS협정과 겹칠 수 있어 그 관계가 문제 된다고 할 수 있다. 본 연구는 이들 협정 간의 경계를 명확히 구분할 수 있는 기준을 다음과 같이 제시한다. 첫째, 어떤 조치가 TBT협정상의 기술규정이나 표준에 해당한다고 하더라도 그 규제 목적이 SPS협정 부속서 1에 기술된 내용과 부합한다면 SPS협정만이 배타적으로 적용되는 것이다. 따라서 TBT협정과 SPS협정과의 관계가 문제되는 경우, 일차적인 단계로 문제의 조치가 위생검역조치인지의 여부를 결정하여야 한다. 둘째, 기술장벽조치와 위생검역조치의 근거가 되는 문서(기술규정, 표준 또는 SPS 관련 국내 법령 등)의 채택과 시행 주체로 비정부기관이 포함되는지에 따라 양 조치를 구분할 수 있다. 셋째, TBT협정과 SPS협정은 공통적으로 ‘농·축·수산물 및 이를 원료로 하는 상품’을 그 규제 대상으로 하고 있다. 그러나 TBT협정에서는 이러한 상품 이외 공산품도 규제 대상에 포함하고 있어 SPS협정의 규제 대상이 되는 상품과 차이가 있다. The TBT and SPS Agreements both cover non-tariff measures addressing issues such as human, animal, or plant health. They contain similar obligations such as non discrimination, use of international standards, enhanced transparency, etc. On the other hand, these Agreements also differ in many other aspects, and not only in terms of some unique obligations each contain, but also concerning the way they define their coverage. In this regard, delineating the boundaries between these two agreements may sometimes be difficult. This study proposes the following criteria to clarify the boundaries between these agreements. First, even if a measure is a technical regulation or standard under the TBT Agreement, it is exclusively covered by the SPS Agreement if its regulatory objective is consistent with that described in Annex 1 of the SPS Agreement. Therefore, if the relationship between the TBT Agreement and the SPS Agreement is in question, the first step is to determine whether the measure in question is a sanitary and phytosanitary measure. Second, a distinction can be made between TBT measures and SPS measures based on whether non-governmental bodies are involved in the adoption and implementation of the documents on which they are based. Third, the TBT Agreement and the SPS Agreement both regulate ‘agricultural, livestock and fishery products and processed products made from them’. However, the TBT Agreement also includes industrial products other than these products, which is different from the products subject to regulation under the SPS Agreement.

WTO 무역원활화 협정과 USMCA, CPTPP, RCEP 통관절차 및 무역원활화 규정의 비교 연구

임목삼 한국무역상무학회 2022 貿易商務硏究 Vol.95 No.-

The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement came into force in February 2017 after the majority of WTO member countries accepted it. The free trade agreement has provisions for 'Customs Clearance Procedures and Trade Facilitation' to enhance the ease of implementation and clarify. The purpose of this study is to suggest trade facilitation measures necessary for the free trade agreements that Korea has already concluded or to be concluded by comparing and analyzing the customs procedures and trade facilitation regulations of the WTO trade facilitation agreement and major free trade agreements. In this study, the customs procedures and trade facilitation regulations of the USMCA, CPTPP and RCEP concluded after the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement were comparatively analyzed. For the comparative analysis method, the content analysis method and comparative analysis method of decomposing each agreement into each article and sub-discipline element unit were used. As a result, it was found that RCEP reflected the WTO trade facilitation agreement as it is, while USMCA and CPTPP reflected the WTO trade facilitation agreement but added additional trade facilitation measures as necessary. Among the customs procedures and trade facilitation regulations of the USMCA, CPTPP and RCEP, the regulations applicable to the customs procedures of the FTA concluded by Korea are as follows, taking into account the historical context of each party, customs laws and information technology level, etc. It is considered possible to introduce them. In the USMCA's customs procedures and trade facilitation regulations, regular communication mechanisms with stakeholders such as industries and traders are operated, the validity period of the pre-examination decision, protection of trustees in good faith in the pre-examination decision, expedited customs clearance and Introduction of export procedures, development of administrative guidelines used for specific transactions, measures to prevent irrationality of border officials and regulations on standards of conduct. It is also worth considering responding to requests for advice and information provision in the CPTPP's customs procedures and trade facilitation regulations. As it has been confirmed that the WTO member countries' customs procedures have been improved and trade costs have been reduced due to the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, it is expected that the export conditions of Korean companies will improve through this study. 대다수의 WTO 회원국이 수락하여 지난 2017년 2월에 발효된 WTO 무역원활화 협정은 지속적으로 확산되고 있는 자유무역협정에서도 협정 이행의 용이성 제고와 명확화를 위하여 ‘통관절차 및 무역원활화’ 규정을 두고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 WTO 무역원활화 협정과 주요 자유무역협정의 통관절차 및 무역원활화 규정을 비교 분석하여, 우리나라가 이미 체결하였거나 체결할 자유무역협정에 필요한 무역원활화 조치를 제안하는데 목적을 둔다. WTO 무역원활화 협정의 발효로 WTO 회원국, 특히 개도국의 통관절차가 개선되고 무역비용이 감소된 것으로 확인된 바, 본 연구를 통해 우리 기업의 수출 여건이 개선될 것으로 기대해 본다.

WTO SPS협정상 지역화에 관한 연구

김현정(Hyun-Jung Kim) 국제법평론회 2022 국제법평론 Vol.- No.63

The World Trade Organization (hereinafter, WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (hereinafter, SPS Agreement) is the first multilateral agreement which elaborates on the principles of Article XX(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994. The SPS Agreement aims to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and prevent those SPS measures from discriminating arbitrarily between the WTO members. Especially, it is important to understand the Adaptation to Regional Conditions (hereinafter, Regionalization) of Article 6 under the SPS Agreement, as WTO Appellate Body in the Russia-Pigs Dispute examined the implementation aspects of Article 6.2 under the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body reversed its previous rulings on Article 6.2 in the India-Agricultural Products Dispute, the US-Animals Dispute, and the Russia-Pigs Dispute, and highlighted the implementation aspects of the 'Regionalization Procedure', for the first time. In addition, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the US-Animals Dispute and the Russia-Pigs Dispute pinpointed the relationship between the 'Import Approval Procedure' under Article 8 and Annex C, and the 'Regionalization Procedure' under the Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. Thus, this research focuses on the WTO Adjudications on Regionalization of Article 6, and its extended interpretations to the 'Import Approval Procedure' of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. It continues to study on the Regionalization provisions within the United States, European Union, and the Republic of Korea. Also, it analyzes and compares on the legal obligations of Regionalization provisions under the preferential trade agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (hereinafter, CPTPP), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (hereinafter, RCEP), and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (hereinafter, USMCA). It mainly compares CPTPP and RCEP, or CPTPP and USMCA. The main purpose of this analysis is to comprehend the contents and the level of legal obligations of CPTPP, and find legal improvements for the domestic regulations of the Republic of Korea after its accession to CPTPP. In the same vein, this research emphasizes on the significance of the WTO Adjudications and its implications to be reflected on the domestic regulations. The Republic of Korea needs to organize a systematic framework for dealing with the Regionalization requests from foreign governments, and establish an official position who specializes in the 'Regionalization Procedure'. This research will provide implications for the improvement of the legal and administrative framework of the Republic of Korea.