지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper tries to test constitutionality of the expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA, which is designed to be exercised via so called investor-state dispute settlement (ISD) system according to the Chapter 11 of that FTA. Since the ISD was combined with FTA, where the first one is the NAFTA, it has construed one of the most powerful mechanism to enforce obligatory provisions of investment agreements and to protect transnational capitals. But, such system cannot be compatible with the principle of national sovereignty, so that many challenges to such ISD has been made worldwide. This paper stands on such promise that the ISD shall be held invalid under Korean Constitutional system.
The expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA is another example of unconstitutionality of the KORUS FTA. That clause has two kinds of expropriation: direct and indirect. The first one requires the state to compensate any losses caused by state's taking of properties or titles even if there is no laws on that compensation. But Korean legal system does not have such kind of expropriation and compensation: according to Korean Constitutional Court, any law which empowers state to take properties or titles but has no clause on compensation for that taking, shall be held unconstitutional to be invalid. There can, accordingly, be no compensation when there is no compensation clause. In other words, no law, no compensation, and no compensation, no taking in Korean Legal system.
The later one, indirect expropriation, pauses so much serious constitutional problems. Korean legal system does not know such kind of expropriation. The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court has continuously denied such one. Moreover, 'regulatory expropriation', which is typical one of the indirect expropriation, can not be conducted as a kind of expropriation, because Korean Constitution has mandated so many regulatory powers on private properties to the state. Under the constitutional orientations toward so called Sozialstaat, Korean government should implement several constitutional obiligations and mandates, if necessary, at the 'sacrifices' of private properties. Korean Constitution has made such sacrifies not as 'takings' but as 'internal limitation of the property rights'.
Surely this paper is written from a kind of partisan perspective against KORUS FTA. But such political bias can be legitimated when the ideal of Korean constitutionalism toward human rights and social justice is taken into account: state's interventions into civils society and economic market for balanced and equitable development of economy and democratization of the Korean economy shall be one of the major constitutional missions. It is at this point, that the expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA can be held unconstitutional.
The expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA is another example of unconstitutionality of the KORUS FTA. That clause has two kinds of expropriation: direct and indirect. The first one requires the state to compensate any losses caused by state's taking of properties or titles even if there is no laws on that compensation. But Korean legal system does not have such kind of expropriation and compensation: according to Korean Constitutional Court, any law which empowers state to take properties or titles but has no clause on compensation for that taking, shall be held unconstitutional to be invalid. There can, accordingly, be no compensation when there is no compensation clause. In other words, no law, no compensation, and no compensation, no taking in Korean Legal system.
The later one, indirect expropriation, pauses so much serious constitutional problems. Korean legal system does not know such kind of expropriation. The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court has continuously denied such one. Moreover, 'regulatory expropriation', which is typical one of the indirect expropriation, can not be conducted as a kind of expropriation, because Korean Constitution has mandated so many regulatory powers on private properties to the state. Under the constitutional orientations toward so called Sozialstaat, Korean government should implement several constitutional obiligations and mandates, if necessary, at the 'sacrifices' of private properties. Korean Constitution has made such sacrifies not as 'takings' but as 'internal limitation of the property rights'.
Surely this paper is written from a kind of partisan perspective against KORUS FTA. But such political bias can be legitimated when the ideal of Korean constitutionalism toward human rights and social justice is taken into account: state's interventions into civils society and economic market for balanced and equitable development of economy and democratization of the Korean economy shall be one of the major constitutional missions. It is at this point, that the expropriation clause of the KORUS FTA can be held unconstitutional.
목차
1. 서론
2. 투자자-국가제소제
3. 투자자-국가제소제와 간접수용
4. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
토론문
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
국제투자법상 간접수용에 관한 연구
법과정책
2013 .01
-
석유․가스전 개발에 있어서의 수용 또는 국유화 - 간접적 점진적 국유화를 중심으로 -
원광법학
2010 .01
-
리스크(risk)로서 한미-FTA 상의 간접수용 조항
공법학연구
2013 .08
-
투자자-국가소송제도(ISD)에 있어 간접수용(Indirect Expropriation)규정에 관한 법적 검토
동아법학
2013 .08
-
한미 FTA와 간접수용 : 국내 재산권 보호 제도에의 시사점
규제연구
2007 .06
-
국제투자협정에서의 수용
국제경제법연구
2011 .11
-
중국의 토지수용과 보상제도에 관한 연구
국토연구
2005 .06
-
국제투자에 있어서 간접수용에 관한 연구 : 간접수용의 요건을 중심으로
무역상무연구
2010 .08
-
한ㆍ미 FTA 협정문 제11ㆍ6조 수용 및 보상의 의미와 정부규제권
공법학연구
2007 .08
-
간접수용의 보상에 관한 ICSID 중재사례 연구
무역상무연구
2015 .05
-
한국이 당사자인 ISDS 사례의 개정 한·미 FTA ｢투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결제도｣(ISDS)에의 시사점과 향후 대응방향
서울국제법연구
2018 .12
-
간접수용을 둘러싼 한ㆍ미 FTA 투자분쟁 예측 및 대책 : NAFTA 사례를 중심으로
법학연구
2009 .11
-
한미 FTA 발효 이후 양국 간 무역 분쟁 해결의 절차에 대한 연구
관세학회지
2011 .12
-
한미 FTA 발효 이후 앙국 간 무역 분쟁 해결의 절차에 대한 연구
한국관세학회 학술대회
2011 .12
-
투자보장협정의 국회 동의 대상 여부에 관한 검토
서울국제법연구
2012 .12
-
NAFTA의 ISD 분쟁사례를 통한 한미 FTA의 ISD 시사점 및 대응방안
통상정보연구
2012 .06
-
A Study of the Arbitration Issue on the KOREA and the U.S. FTA
중재연구
2017 .01
-
투자자-국가 분쟁해결(ISDS)의 대상이 된 투자자 보호원칙에 관한 연구
중재연구
2009 .01
-
중국법상 사유재산의 수용과 보상제도에 관한 一考
공법학연구
2007 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018401392