본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

목차보기

목차

국제투자규범상 최소기준대우에 관한 연구 / 김인숙 1

I. 서론 1

II. 국제투자규범상 최소기준대우의 의의 2

III. 국제투자규범상 최소기준대우 규정방식 4

1. 일반적 관행 4

2. 한국의 관행 7

IV. 최소기준대우와 국제관습법의 관계 8

V. 최소기준대우의 범위 10

1. 공정·공평한 대우 12

2. 충분한 보호 및 안전 17

3. 투명성 20

4. 합리적 기대의 보호 21

VI. 내국민대우 규정과의 관계 22

VII. 결론 23

〈Abstract〉 26

초록보기

This research is designed to help understand the controversial issue, International minimum standard, in the international investment rules(FTA Investment Chapter, BITs) and to guide the direction of discussion on such issues.

More than 2000 BITs were ratified during the second half of the 20th century, Most of the bilateral and regional investment treaties (more than 2000) almost uniformly provide for fair and equitable treatment of foreign investments, and provide for full security and protection of investments. Moreover, most of them include an obligation to provide foreign investors with the "minimum standard of treatment" to which they were entitled under customary international law. Investment treaties generally provide little guidance on the content of the minimum standard of treatment, but instead define it by reference to the customary international law. Therefore the customary international law does play an important role to the extent that it defines the minimum standard of treatment.

The minimum standard of treatment was a broad concept intended to encompass the doctrine of denial of justice along with other aspects of the law of state responsibility for injuries to aliens. Although the minimum standard of treatment has a long pedigree in international law through its roots in the ancient doctrine of denial of justice, its content has always been highly indeterminate, and the discussions of what types of measures it prohibits have largely focused on how egregiously a government's conduct offends the sense(s) of justice of the members of a tribunal in order to violate the standard. Recently the vagueness of the minimum standard of treatment and its fair and equitable treatment component in particular has become a source of significant controversy due to its record as the most frequently invoked standard of protection in investor-state arbitral disputes. Given the indeterminacy of the standard's content, it is impossible to determine the coherence of the practice of nations with regard to the minimum standard of treatment. And despite its being a legal principle, the plain meaning of the minimum standard of treatment leaves considerable discretion to arbiters in considering just what is the minimum standard. International liability for violations of the minimum standard of treatment as developed and defined by arbitral tribunals can reasonably be expected to affect how domestic policy makers exercise their authority.

권호기사

참고문헌 (15건) : 자료제공( 네이버학술정보 )

참고문헌 목록에 대한 테이블로 번호, 참고문헌, 국회도서관 소장유무로 구성되어 있습니다.
번호 참고문헌 국회도서관 소장유무
1 UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, UN, 1999, p.12. 미소장
2 Nicholas DiMascio, Joost Pauwelyn, "Nondiscrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds Apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?" 102 Am. J. Int'l L. 48, January 2008, p.748 미소장
3 Alireza Falsafi, "The International Minimum Standard of Treatment of Foreign Investors' Property: A Contingent Standard," 30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 317, 2007, pp.1-2. 미소장
4 UNCTAD, Investor-State Dispute Settlement and Impact on Investment Rulemaking, UN: New York and Geneva, 2007, p.75. 미소장
5 Matthew C. Porterfield, "An International Common Law of Investor Rights?" 27 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 79, 2006, p.84. 미소장
6 Stephen M. Schwebel, "The Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary International Law," 98 Am. Soc'y Int'l. L. Proc. 27, 2004, p.28. 미소장
7 M. Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment(2d ed.) 2004, p.328; 미소장
8 Catherine Yannaca-Small, "Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law 2"(Org. for Econ. Cooperation & Dev., Working Papers on International Investment, Paper No. 2004/3, 2004), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/53/33776498.pdf. 미소장
9 Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award(2004. 4. 40), para. 91. 미소장
10 Mondev Int'l, Ltd. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award(2002. 1. 11), para. 121. 미소장
11 Stefan Matiation, "Arbitration with Two Twists: Loewen v. United States and Free Trade Commission Intervention in NAFTA Chapter 11 Disputes," 24 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 451, 2003, p.495. 미소장
12 Cai Congyan, "China-Us Bit Negotiations and the Future of Investment Treaty Regime::A Grand Bilateral Bargain with Multilateral Implications," 12 J. Int'l Econ. L. 457, June, 2009, p.466. 미소장
13 Towards a Common Law of International Investment: How NAFTA Chapter 11 Panels Should Solve their Legitimacy Crisis 네이버 미소장
14 NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions(NAFTA Chapter 11 Investment), July 31, 2001.(http://www.naftaclaims. com/files/NAFTA_Comm_1105_Transparency.pdf ). 미소장
15 장승화, 양자간투자협정 연구 법무부, 문중인쇄, 2001. 12, 76면. 미소장