• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.227-227
• /
• 2017

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.1-19
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This study empirically analyzes the effects of provisional anti-dumping duties levied on imports by Korea following anti-dumping investigations. An anti-dumping duty is a legal tool that countries use to impose duties on imports to offset injurious dumping. This study verifies how effective the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty is and whether such duties have trade chilling effects on aggregate imports. Specifically, this study examines import trade diversion from named to unnamed countries caused by the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties. Design/methodology - This empirical analysis employs an econometric model of provisional anti-dumping measures for cases in which Korea imposed final affirmative anti-dumping measures. We construct a monthly panel dataset for each stage of anti-dumping investigation undertaken by Korea for all manufacturing industries during 1995-2013. We illustrate a stage-by-stage analysis of anti-dumping investigations from initiation, preliminary decision, imposition of provisional duty, final affirmative decision, and imposition of final affirmative duty on a monthly basis at the six-digit harmonized system code-level. Findings - For cases in which provisional duties are imposed, the reduction in imports from named countries outweighs the increase in imports from unnamed countries. The substantial reduction in imports from named countries is large enough to offset the import diversion to unnamed countries, suggesting that import diversion in investigations is limited during the investigation period. Therefore, the use of provisional anti-dumping duties in Korea is effective, providing evidence of a chilling effect on aggregate imports. Originality/value - Few studies examine the size of the effects on import trade diversion of the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties. We contribute to the literature by disentangling separate trade effects for each phase of the anti-dumping investigation process and imposition of provisional duty.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.41
• /
• pp.237-266
• /
• 2009

KORUS-FTA are consist of articles 8. In order to the subjects are, application of a safeguard measures, conditions and limitations, provisional measures, compensation, global safeguard actions, definitions, antidumping and countervailing duties, committee on trade remedies. In especially, regarding application of a safeguard measures under KORUS-FTA, if as a result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under this agreement, an originating good of the other party is being imported into the territory of a party in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions that the imports of such originating good from the other party constitute a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive good, the party may: suspend the further reduction of any rate of customs duty on the good provided for under this agreement; increase the rate of customs duty on the good to a level not to exceed the lesser of: the most-favored-nation (MFN) applied rate of duty on the good in effect at the time the action is taken; and the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect on the day immediately preceding the date this Agreement enters into force; or in the case of a customs duty applied to a good on a seasonal basis, increase the rate of duty to a level that, for each season, does not exceed the lesser of: the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect for the corresponding season immediately preceding the date of application of the safeguard measure; and the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect for the corresponding season immediately preceding the date this agreement enters into force.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.79-104
• /
• 2010

The Original Equipment Manufacturer(OEM) Export is one of the most frequent trading system in international transactions, especially for Korean export companies. Even with vast majority of benefits of OEM Export, it still has two sides: bright and dark. Frequently, uneven position between parties drives a party to endure transactional practices harsh and unconscionable. A Recent case in one Korean court shows another aspect of OEM transactions. For the provisional measure against unilateral termination of the contract, it contain essential legal issues that can arise in international OEM transactions, like international jurisdiction, interpretation of contracts, termination of contracts, etc. Deep analysis of several issues in the case, apart from the court's decision, is expected to give insight into the legal status of the parties for strategic operations of OEM practices.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.21-47
• /
• 2017

Interim measures by an arbitral tribunal aim to protect the parties' rights before or during arbitral proceedings for avoiding frustration of the final award in international commercial disputes. Even though decisions of the interim measure are expected to be performed by parties directly during the arbitral processing, it is not easy to be provided by the arbitral tribunals cause of lack the power to enforce their decisions directly against the parties. Particular court supports mechanism for enforcement directly to assistance to arbitral tribunal's decisions. Decisions on interim measures are provisional. Even though the arbitration is ongoing to request interim measure directly to the arbitral tribunal, relevant courts are able to ensure effective relief cause by the difficulty of limited rights of the arbitral tribunal. In this time both revised Korean Arbitration Act in 2016 and UNCITRAL 2006 revised Model Law are complemented to attach articles for recognition and enforcement of interim measures by arbitral tribunal during the arbitration processing. It could be possible to enforcement of decisions of interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the revised arbitration law. In this paper it is considered the problems and alternatives on related applicable articles and articles of recognition and enforcement for the interim measures by arbitral tribunal under the revised UNCITRAL Model law and Korean Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.1053-1062
• /
• 2015

This research assesses the implementation of the bilateral fisheries order of the China-Japan fisheries agreement. After establishment of UNCLOS, the China-Japanese fisheries agreement has played as a basis for the fisheries order in the East China Sea. The China-Japanese fisheries agreement intends that the fisheries industries in China and Japan can utilize the renewable natural resources in the East China Sea. As the EEZ of China overlaps with that of Japanese in the East China Sea, the two countries established the China-Japan Provisional Measure Zone and Middle Zone in the Sea. Even though the three coastal States (e.g. Korea, China, and Japan) in the East China Sea are involved in managing these zones, there has been little effort to coordinate each county's management. Additionally, the Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement, which is for the area of N $27^{\circ}$, has made costal States to establish and implement united measures to conduct effective fisheries management. Regarding access to the joint fishing zone in EEZ, Chinese fisheries regulations have been enforced in the zone because the fishing capacity of China exceeds all of other countries, reducing the number of fishing licenses and catch quotas. It turned out that a nation that has authority over fisheries resources tends to establish specific conditions of fishing operations to maximize its national interest. In the China-Japan Provisional Measure Zone, Chinese and Japanese authorities have introduced united measures to manage fisheries resources. However, in the Middle Zone between China and Japan, there is no regulation on fishing; both countries' fishing vessels can have free access to the zone. Thus, it is recommended that one should introduce an international fisheries management regime for the Middle Zone. In this regard, Korea should play a leading role in establishing the international management regime because Korea has middle position in terms of geographical standpoint, the degree of dependence on commercial fishing, and its fishing capacity.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.125-149
• /
• 2021

Even 10 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan has yet to solve the problems emerging from generating contaminated water every day. Japan has unilaterally decided to release nuclear wastewater in the sea despite Korea's concerns about safety as their radioactive water storage tanks reach the limits. Despite Korea's response, Japan is still preparing to discharge nuclear wastewater without fulfilling its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are concerns about marine pollution caused by the radioactive materials from nuclear wastewater and invading Korea's maritime sovereignty. In particular, it is impossible to reverse the effects of environmental pollution, so plans to discharge radioactive water must be prevented unless immediate safety is guaranteed. This study proposes Korea's response strategy to resolve the conflict between the two countries due to plans to release contaminated water. Korea should respond to Japan's release of nuclear wastewater in the sea in various ways through cooperation with Japan, provisional measures, and cooperation with neighboring countries.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.239-257
• /
• 2011

This article examines the requirements of Article 37 of the ICDR International Arbitration Rules and issues that could arise if a party petitions a U.S. Federal Court to enforce an emergency arbitrator's Article 37 decision to grant pre-arbitration provisional relief. On May 1, 2006, ICDR introduced a new procedure for the granting of emergency arbitral relief under its ICDR Rules. The procedure enables a party to apply for emergency interim relief before the appointment of an arbitrator or tribunal to adjudicate the merits of the dispute. Instead, the application for emergency relief is considered by an emergency arbitrator appointed by the ICDR. In short, the ICDR has quickly appointed emergency arbitrator and resolved a challenge to an appointment within 36 hours. In addition, the emergency decisions have been issued within just a couple of weeks. In particular, we looked at what would happen after Article 37 emergency relief is granted. Based on my examination of U.S. cases on the enforceability of interim awards and orders, We conclude that U.S. courts would enforce Article 37 interim measures, whether they are characterized by the emergency arbitrator as an interim order or award. Where the situation warrants, arbitration executives should embrace and use emergency relief procedure of ICDR Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.53-76
• /
• 2017

Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts-due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes-in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. "domestic" disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of "international" arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non?domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.99-109
• /
• 2000

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(hereinafter referred as "the Law") adopted in 1982 was enacted on November 16, 1994. South Korea, China, and Japan signed and ratified the Law, respectively. These three countries announced their domestic laws relating to Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) with reserving their applications. The enactment of the Law and announcement of EEZ inevitably brought new order on the seas. The New Fishery Agreement based on the Law with EEZ was concluded between South Korea and Japan and ratified by each country′s parliament. Another New Fishery Agreement between South Korea and China is also going to be concluded in near future. The New Fishery Agreements, however, do not include regulations relating to the marine scientific research, the protection of the marine environment, and so forth, which are essential for the States to fully implement the Law According to the New Fishery Agreements, it is impossible for the Coastal States to excercise their jurisdiction. Because the agreement of delimitation ocean boundaries among the three countries are not easy to settle, provisional agreements can only be concluded. Thus, many problems including the sovereignty over Dok-do between South Korea and Japan and delimitation of EEZ between South Korea and China can be arose anytime. This paper investigates the problems and possible counter measures in legal excercise on the seas by South Korean Government. The above mentioned problems introduced by the New Fishery Agreements include potential problems in the Middle Sea Zone, Provisional Zone, and so forth. In this paper, only the legal aspect of the Zones will be discussed excluding the law enforcement and the economic aspect of the Zones.