메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
김석호 (인천대학교)
저널정보
법무부 국제법무정책과 통상법률 통상법률 제135호
발행연도
2017.6
수록면
77 - 136 (60page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The right to regulate foreign investment is essential to host states which pursue their development policy. In International Investment protection agreements it is just realized by the regulation ‘in accordance with host state law.’ But in case foreign investor brings investment disputes to international arbitration, its role is shifted from the realization of it’s development policy to the ground to rebut jurisdiction of international arbitration. This host states’ desire to exclude jurisdiction of international arbitration makes pertinent regulation appear cumulatively in plural clauses: Par example, in admission clause, definition of investment clause and protection clause etc.
This shift of role of the regulation concerned results in many difficult legal problems; Firstly, all kinds of violation of host state’s laws can’t result in the exclusion of jurisdiction. If so, of which degree the illegality can attain for this end? Secondly, can host state always invoke the illegality of investment whenever he want to do, independent of his own illegality? If not, in which case he can’t invoke it ? Thirdly, it is the international arbitral tribunal who decides if the investment concerned is illegal or not. But International tribunal is not usually accustomed to domestic laws. Therefore, which effect the judgements concerned of domestic courts can have in this case?
The type and form of illegality of investment are not simple. This fact raises at least two dimensional problems: one is the substantial problem on if the tribunal shall recognize the difference enter ‘the illegality as such’ of investment and the illegality of means of investment. the another is the procedural problem on if the questions concerned shall be treated in the phase of jurisdiction or in merit. If illegality is invoked to reject to apply the Investment agreement, is it to be a question of jurisdiction in a narrow meaning or of admissibility?

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ.‘국내법 부합규정’의 상이한 위치
Ⅲ. 관할(Jurisdiction)거부를 위한 ‘국내법 부합조항’에의 위반성
Ⅳ. 국내법 부합규정에의 위반성 문제의 소송절차상 지위
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
[국문초록]
[ABSTRACT]

참고문헌 (33)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0