• Title, Summary, Keyword: Dispute Comment

Search Result 5, Processing Time 0.033 seconds

Extracting and Visualizing Dispute comments and Relations on Internet Forum Site (인터넷 토론 사이트의 논쟁댓글 및 논쟁관계 시각화)

  • Lee, Yun-Jung;Jung, In-Joon;Woo, Gyun
    • The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
    • /
    • v.12 no.2
    • /
    • pp.40-51
    • /
    • 2012
  • Recently, many users discuss and argue with others using replying comments. This implies that a series of comments can be a new source of information since various opinions can be appeared in the dispute. It is important to understand the implicit dispute structure immanent in the comment set. In this paper, we examine the characteristics of disputes using replying comments in the Internet forum sites using a set of test articles with the comments collected from SketicalLeft and Agora, which are famous Internet forum sites in Korea. And we propose a new method for detecting and visualizing the dispute sections and relations from a large set of replying comments. To show the performance of our method, we measured precision, recall, and F-measure. According to the experimental results, the F-measures of the detection of the comments in dispute are about 0.84 (SketpcialLeft) and 0.83 (Agora); those of the detection of the commenter pairs in dispute are 0.75 (SketpcialLeft) and 0.82 (Agora), respectively. Since our method exploits the temporal order of commenters to detect the disputes, it is not dependent on the host language nor on the typos in comments. Also, our method can help the readers to grasp the structure of controversy hidden in the comment set through the visualized view.

A Case Study on the Resolution of International Investment Disputes Caused by Aggravation of Political and Economic Situation of the Host State - Focusing on the case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (투자유치국의 정치.경제상황 악화로 인한 국제투자분쟁의 해결에 관한 사례연구 -CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic 사건을 중심으로)

  • Oh, Won-Suk;Hur, Hai-Kwan
    • The Korean Research Institute of International Commerce and Law
    • /
    • v.36
    • /
    • pp.87-109
    • /
    • 2007
  • This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.

  • PDF

Interpretation of the Umbrella Clause in Investment Treaties (국제투자조약상 포괄적 보호조항(Umbrella Clauses)의 해석에 관한 연구)

  • Jo, Hee-Moon
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.19 no.2
    • /
    • pp.95-126
    • /
    • 2009
  • One of the controversial issues in investor-state investment arbitration is the interpretation of "umbrella clause" that is found in most BIT and FTAs. This treaty clause requires on Contracting State of treaty to observe all investment obligations entered into with foreign investors from the other Contracting State. This clause did not receive in-depth attention until SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines cases produced starkly different conclusions on the relations about treaty-based jurisdiction and contract-based jurisdiction. More recent decisions by other arbitral tribunals continue to show different approaches in their interpretation of umbrella clauses. Following the SGS v. Philippines decision, some recent decisions understand that all contracts are covered by umbrella clause, for example, in Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, Sempra Energy Int'l v. Argentina and Enron Corp. V. Argentina. However, other recent decisions have found a different approach that only certain kinds of public contracts are covered by umbrella clauses, for example, in El Paso Energy Int'l Co. v. Argentina, Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentina and CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina. With relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most of tribunals have the position that the contractual remedy should not affect the jurisdiction of BIT tribunal. Even some tribunals considered that there is no need to exhaust contract remedies before bringing BIT arbitration, provoking suspicion of the validity of sanctity of contract in front of treaty obligation. The decision of the Annulment Committee In CMS case in 2007 was an extraordinarily surprising one and poured oil on the debate. The Committee composed of the three respected international lawyers, Gilbert Guillaume and Nabil Elaraby, both from the ICJ, and professor James Crawford, the Rapportuer of the International Law Commission on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, observed that the arbitral tribunal made critical errors of law, however, noting that it has limited power to review and overturn the award. The position of the Committee was a direct attack on ICSID system showing as an internal recognition of ICSID itself that the current system of investor-state arbitration is problematic. States are coming to limit the scope of umbrella clauses. For example, the 2004 U.S. Model BIT detailed definition of the type of contracts for which breach of contract claims may be submitted to arbitration, to increase certainty and predictability. Latin American countries, in particular, Argentina, are feeling collectively victims of these pro-investor interpretations of the ICSID tribunals. In fact, BIT between developed and developing countries are negotiated to protect foreign investment from developing countries. This general characteristic of BIT reflects naturally on the provisions making them extremely protective for foreign investors. Naturally, developing countries seek to interpret restrictively BIT provisions, whereas developed countries try to interpret more expansively. As most of cases arising out of alleged violation of BIT are administered in the ICSID, a forum under the auspices of the World Bank, these Latin American countries have been raising the legitimacy deficit of the ICSID. The Argentine cases have been provoking many legal issues of international law, predicting crisis almost coming in actual investor-state arbitration system. Some Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, already showed their dissatisfaction with the ICSID system considering withdrawing from it to minimize the eventual investor-state dispute. Thus the disagreement over umbrella clauses in their interpretation is becoming interpreted as an historical reflection on the continued tension between developing and developed countries on foreign investment. There is an academic and political discussion on the possible return of the Calvo Doctrine in Latin America. The paper will comment on these problems related to the interpretation of umbrella clause. The paper analyses ICSID cases involving principally Latin American countries to identify the critical legal issues arising between developing and developed countries. And the paper discusses alternatives in improving actual investor-State investment arbitration; inter alia, the introduction of an appellate system and treaty interpretation rules.

  • PDF

Basic Direction for the South and North Korea's Aybitration Rules (남북중재규정 제정의 기본방향)

  • Kim Yeon-Ho
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.15 no.1
    • /
    • pp.3-26
    • /
    • 2005
  • Since the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration was signed by the Governments of South and North Korea last year, there has been quite a few discussions on the way for implementing the Agreement in both public and private sectors. The Department of Justice of South Korea was quite active in making the draft of arbitration rules representing the South Korean views in alliance with the Department of Reunification of South Korea and recently held an informal seminar to preview their draft. On the other hand, the Korea Arbitration Association, a main body of commercial arbitration which are composed of professors and lawyers, were carefully watching the steps and the draft made by the Department of Justice. The reasons are to assure that not only shall the commercial arbitration rules comply with comment norms of international arbitration but shall it be made to meet the needs of enterprises investing in the Special Economic District of Kaesung City in North Korea. The concerns of the Korea Arbitration Association can be accomplished if the Department of Justice would modify the provisions pointed out in the seminars. Five general principles shall be brought into the attention in promulgating the commercial arbitration rules. First, it should comply with the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration signed by South and North Korea. Second, it should accept common rules contained in UNCITRAL arbitration rules. Third, it should boost the promptness of proceedings when a case was filed. Fourth, it should feature unique aspects of trade between South Korea and Korea by differentiating it from purely international trade between a country and a country. Lastly, it should combine the respective rules of both South and North Korea, currently in effect. With the above five principles accomplished, it should be noted that the Agreement on Commercial Arbitration the upper authority of arbitration rules, mandates the following features. It declared that arbitration be processed by three arbitrators. Single arbitrator is not permitted. Arbitration can be adopted even if an arbitration clause does not exist in an agreement by the parties, provided that the dispute arose out of the scope of the Agreement on investment Guarantee signed by South Korea and North Korea. It excluded quick and simplified procedures even if the amount of claim in arbitration is minimal. All the procedures should take a formal procedure. It let the double administration offices operate. One is to sit in Seoul of South Korea and the other is to sit in Pyongyang of North Korea. This would intimidate the fastness of procedures. With the above principles and the features considered, each provision in the draft by the Department of Justice should be reviewed and suggested for change.

  • PDF

A Comment on the Standard for International Jurisdiction to foreign-related cases by the employment contract and tort in Air crash (항공기사고에서 국제근로계약과 불법행위의 국 제재판관할권 판단기준)

  • Cho, Jeong-Hyeon;Hwang, Ho-Won
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.31 no.2
    • /
    • pp.73-98
    • /
    • 2016
  • This is a case review of the Korean Supreme Court about international jurisdiction over a foreign-related case. This case is a guideline to other following cases how Korean court has international jurisdiction over the foreign elements cases. This case was an air crash accident in Busan, Korea. And the applicant was a chinese who was parents of flight attendant. The defendant was Air China. The applicant suid the defendant in Korea court, requesting for compensation for damages based on the contract of employment between died employee and the defendant and tort. The trial court rejected jurisdiction. But Supreme court granted jurisdiction on Korean court. The court determined the jurisdiction by the Korean Private International Law Act(KPILA). The KPILA has a concept of 'substantial connection', it is a main legal analysis to determine the jurisdiction. In the act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 says "In case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantive relations." And Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares "A court shall judge whether or not it has the international jurisdiction in the light of jurisdictional provisions of domestic laws and shall take a full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." In this case review find concepts, theories and cases out to clarify the meaning about Article 2 of the KPILA. Also it quoted from the concept of "the base rule" in Rome I (Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) to apply the contract of employment between flight attendant and Air carrier.