미국 해상보험법의 체계 및 구조에 따른 문제점에 관한 고찰

남도현 ( Nam Do-hyun ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2018 법학연구 Vol.26 No.1

As the scale of the US involvement in the global trade and insurance market is overwhelming, the adoption of maritime law in the United States as an international trade law is expanding. At this point, it is necessary to examine the US maritime law in addition to the existing maritime insurance law. Unlike Korea, the United States has a legal system in which federal and state laws coexist under the federal system. There is therefore the possibility of controversy of choice of laws and jurisdiction between the federal and state laws. The US Constitution states that maritime law is under the jurisdiction of federal law by stating that the federal judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It means that the exclusive jurisdiction is given to the federal court since contracts for maritime affairs are governed by maritime law and maritime insurance contracts are subject to maritime law as the maritime affair. However, in the case that a plaintiff files a civil lawsuit for the dispute on the maritime affair in a state court rather than maritime lawsuit, the state court may have jurisdiction over the lawsuits related to maritime insurance contracts. Especially in the case of Wilburn Boat Co., it is unprecedented that the Supreme Court to decide that state law applies to marine insurance contracts. In the case, the court stated that the case is governed by the appropriate state law if there was no federal admiralty law rule governing warranties in a marine insurance contract. These standards could affect cases related to the entire maritime law as well as the marine insurance law after the case of Wilburn Boat Co. This can be seen as increasing the uncertainty about the conflicts that may arise due to the lack of consistency of law for the counterparts of US on international trades. Therefore, in order to improve understanding of the US marine insurance law, a comprehensive understanding of the system and structure of the US marine insurance law is required. Based on this understanding, it is also necessary to review practical measures for the international trade. The practical impact of the systemic and structural problems of maritime insurance law could lead to the lack of international commonality and consistency of maritime insurance if the state law is applied to maritime insurance matters. In other words, the increase in legal uncertainty could cause a decrease of the international credibility, an increase of the potential dispute, and the problem of insurer to undertake the marine insurance. In order to respond to these problems, it is necessary to first conclude a valid agreement between the contracting parties to specify the applicable law and jurisdiction, and select the federal maritime law and federal courts, rather than the state law and state courts, as the applicable law for the maritime contract to provide more consistent and legal stability.

미국 상사법의 개별입법화 동향

김순석(Soon-Suk Kim) 한국기업법학회 2009 企業法硏究 Vol.23 No.4

Since the jurisdiction of US private laws belongs to each state, there basically exists no federal law with respect to private matters. Therefore the modernization and unification of commercial laws enacted by each state has become the major concern. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute, with the cooperation of the American Bar Association, enacted the Uniform Commercial Code(UCC) in 1952 and has revised it continuously thereafter. However, the UCC does not cover all corporate laws and its contents are only composed of some parts of Korean Civil Code and Commercial Code. Therefore, the Corporate Section of American Bar Association enacted the Model Business Corporation Act in 1950, which becomes the model law of state corporation laws. Regarding US insurance law, even though there is no model act, the New York Insurance Law and the California Insurance Law play major role in this field. As the jurisdiction of maritime law belongs to the federal government, several maritime laws are enacted as federal laws. This study analyzes US commercial laws in terms of general provision, corporation law, insurance law and maritime law by comparing Korean laws. It concludes that since the legal system of US commercial laws is quite different from that of Korean laws, it is not relevant to adopt US commercial law system to Korea.

해상보험계약상 준거법 조항의 집행가능성에 대한 미국연방대법원 판례 소고

권오정 한국해법학회 2024 한국해법학회지 Vol.46 No.2

미국의 해상보험 법제는 개별 주단위에서 규제하는 보험법적인 측면과 연방 차원의 규율이 적용되는 해상법의 영역이 공존하는 복잡한 형태를가지고 있다. 1815년 DeLovio v Boit 사건에서 Joseph Story 판사는 연방헌법에 따른 해사관할권이 전통적인 먼 바다에서의 해상무역 혹은 항해와 관련된 사항 뿐만아니라 해상보험계약과 같은 해사 관련 영역에도 적용된다고 보았다. 1944년 연방 대법원에서 다수의 주가 관여된 보험계약에 대해 이를 주간 상거래(interstate commerce)로 보고 연방 반독점법이적용되는 것으로 판결한 사건이 있었다. 이후에, 반독점규제와 같이 주 법률이 적용되지 아니하는 일부 연방법 적용 분야를 제외하고 오히려 전반적인 보험산업에 대한 주 법률의 적용과 규제권을 확립시키는 the McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945)가 제정되었다. 이러한 미국 보험법제의변화는 해상보험계약에도 영향을 미쳤다. 1955년의 Wilburn Boat 판결에서 미국 연방대법원은 해상보험계약상 워런티 위반과 관련하여 특정한연방 제정법이나 확립된 연방 해사 규정이 없는 경우에 연방 해상법 대신에 주법의 규정이 해상보험계약을 해석하고 집행하는데 적용된다고 판단하였다. 2024년 2월 미국 연방대법원은 보험계약에 포함된 준거법 조항의 집행이 해당 주의 공서조항과 충돌하는 경우 준거법 조항의 집행 가능성에 대한 쟁점을 다루었다. 대법원은 본 사건에서 계약상 합의된 준거법 조항상연방법 적용에 대한 예외 주장을 배척하고, 해상보험계약에서 준거법 조항이 추정적으로 유효하고 집행가능한다는 해상법 원칙을 확인하였다. 연방대법원은 연방 해상법과 규정이 확립된 경우 개별 주법보다는 연방 해상법의 통일적인 적용을 우선시해야 하는 것으로 판단하였다. 금번 연방대법원의 판결로 인해 미국에서 해상보험을 포함한 해상계약상 준거법 적용에 대한 분쟁에서 해당 주별 법규정을 일일이 살필 필요없이, 연방 해상법의 일관되고 예측 가능한 적용이 확인되었다는 측면에서 긍정적이다. 우리나라 해운기업이나 무역 업체의 경우도 미국의 거래상대방과 국제무역 거래에 수반되는 다양한 해상보험 및 해사 계약상 채택되고 있는 준거법 조항의 일관된 적용이 가능하다는 점에서 Wilburn Boat 판결 이후의 미국 해상보험 및 해사계약상 법적 불확정성을 어느 정도 해소할 수 있게 되었다.

북극해 영유권을 둘러싼 캐나다-미국 간 갈등의 국제정치

라미경 한국해양안보포럼 2020 한국해양안보논총 Vol.3 No.1

The purpose of this study is to analyze the sovereignty issue that forms the basis of traditional security and is a key issue in the conflict of the great powers among the aspects of international political conflict since the 21st century. In particular, I would like to analyze the conflict of border disputes over the Beaufort Sea between Canada and the United States, which is typical of conflicts and confrontations over maritime jurisdiction. Canada is 141 degrees west of the “as far as the frozen ocean” under the British-Russian Treaty of 1825, where the border of the waters defined the boundary between Alaska and Yukon, 200 nautical miles along the meridian Insist that it is going to be defined. This is to determine the ocean boundary line according to the land boundary line established in the treaty. The United States is in a position to delineate the ocean boundary along an equidistant line from the coasts of both countries. Due to the difference in position between the two countries, 7,000㎢ of water is overlapping, and there is a considerable amount of oil in this area, making it more difficult to resolve disputes. Both countries have oil development rights in these waters. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the only international governing body surrounding the Arctic. It should be noted that the United States Congress is not ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The conflict between Canada and the United States, centered on the Buffert Sea, has put each country’s stance on the demarcation, but has not led to a physical conflict. Rather, the two countries are responding jointly to environmental issues and to search for shoreline structures, and are expressing voices of checks against China and Russia, which are active in the development of the Arctic Circle.