서강 로리뷰 제8호 (2015년 9월).pdf

ISSN 2234-2885

SogangLaw Review2015 9 8

( 2009. 12. 24. 200912778 ) 3

(FCPA: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) Compliance Program

23 - (ISDS)

- (ICSID) - 57 81 2014 , , 99 6 , , 143 1 , , 175

Sogang Law Review Vol.8, September 2015. Sogang Law School

, , , , 199 , . , 217 , , , 231 , . , , , , 271

291 294 299 302

i

,

. 2015

,

.

,

. ,

.

, .

8

.

.

.

,

.

,

.

,

. ,

,

.

,

.

8

. ,

.

ii

,

,

.

.

.

3

, 1

.

.

,

.

, ,

.

.

.

.

.

. IT

,

iii

.

.

.

,

.

8 ,

. ,

.

.

8 (6) , 6

( 6) , , , , 7( 7) , , ,

, , , .

,

.

,

.

2015 9

Sogang Law Review

Vol.8, September 2015. 3-21

Sogang Law School

2015 9 8 3-21

3

( 2009. 12. 24. 200912778 )

1)

. . . . .

.

. ,

. , ,

.

104 3 , . 104 3 103 3 3 ,

.

1) 4

4

.

, .

.

. ,

,

.

,

2 3

.

(CERCLA)

.

.

1.

, 2003. 3. 14.

( )

245,730.7( ) 2003. 3. 25.

.

, 2006. 10.

, .

5

2007. 9. 18. 103 3 3

, (

679,645) 15 3 3

.

,

.

2.

22)() .

3. .

103( )

. ,

.

104( )3) 10

2) 2 3( 7291, 2004.12.31, ).

2 3. ( 10551, 2011.4.5, , ).

2 3. ( 12522, 2014.3.24, . ).

3) 103 3 2011.4.5. , 104

103 3 .

6

3 1 . , 3(

) 4

.

1.

2.

3. 1 2

4.

3. 4)

1) 2 3 , 103 3 3

1 ,

.

2) ,

, ,

, 2 3 103

4) 2009. 12. 24. 200912778 .

7

3 3 1 .

.

1.

, , 2 3

.

,

. 2 3

.

2. 103 3 3

1)

2 3

, 103 3 3 1

,

.

2) 5)

8

(1) 2 3

, 2 3

,

,

, 102 1, 10

3 3 2

,

2 3 .

(2) 103 3 3

,

,

.

(3)

,

1, 10 3 3

,

5) 2009.6.26. 2009829 .

9

,

, ,

.

3.

1) 2 3

103 3 3

, 2 3

. 2 3

, 103 3 3

, 103 1

.

, ,

2011.4.5. , .6) 2014.3.24. 2

3 ,

. ,

. , 2 3 ,

, 13 ,

, .

6) 1, , 6, , 2013, 613.

10

2)

, 13

. , 13

.

. ,

.7)

, ,

.8) ,

.

, 9) . ,

,

.

3)

,

7) , , 10, 2013, , 107.

8) , , , 2012, 427. 9) [ 2015.1.1.] [ 11862, 2013. 6. 4., ]

11

.10) , , ( CERCLA ) .11) , CERCLA .12)

,

,13)

2002.1.1.

.

4.

, . 13 , 2 3 .

CERCLA

104 3

,

.

10) , , 14, , 2013, 582-583.

11) , , 35 1, , 2013, 3.

12) , : -

-, 181 0, , 2012, 7.

13) 2012.8.23., 201028 .

12

.

1.

104

.

,

, .

2.

1)

(1)

2 3

. , 103 3 3 . ,

. , 2 3

, 10

3 3 3 1 ,

.

13

(2)

2003. 3. 14.

2003. 3. 25. , 2003. 11.

, 2004. 3. 31.

, , ,

, 2004. 6.

, 2006. 10.

3

, , , , 9

42

, 103 3 3

, ,

, 103 3 3

. .

2) 1

114) 102 115)

, ,

14) 2008.12.18. 20073204 .

15) 102()

(104 4 ) ( .

) ( )

.

1.

14

,

16) ,

, , . ,

, ,

, .

3.

1)

103 3( 104) ,

, .

,17) 104

.

2)

104 CERCLA18) 16) 6( )

5 1 () 1 ,

,

, , , ...

,

, 25 ,

, .

17) , , 427.

15

(innocent landowner) .

.19) , , . 1, ,

, , . , .

4.

1)

.

, 6( ) 2

,

,

. , 3

, , .

.

18) (all appropriate

inquiries) , (innocent landowner)

(all appropriate inquiries) ,

(CERCLA

101(35)(A)(), (B)()).

19) , , 3, , 2014, 748.

16

2)

,

( ),

(

).

, .

,

.

,

.

.

. .

.

,

,

.

,

17

20),

.

, ,

. 103 3

3 , 1

,

. ,

.

.

20) , : , , , 2002, 90.

18

[]

, , , 2014. 1 , , 2013., , , 2012.

[]

, , 14, , 2013.

, , 35 1, , 2013.

, :

, , , 2002., ,

10, , 2013.

, : -, , 181, 0, , 2012.

[]

2012. 8. 23. 201028 .

2009. 12. 24. 200912778 .

2009. 6. 26. 2009829 .

2008. 12. 18. 20073204 .

19

[ ]

23, 103, 104 3.

(CERCLA) 101(35)(A)(), (B)().

[ ] [ 11862, 2013. 6. 4., , 2005.

1. 1. ]

20

ABSTRACT

Soil pollution and unknown infallible polluter

(Supreme Court 2009. 12. 24. 2009Du12778)

Kim, Yeon Jin

Soil Environment Conservation Act provides strict liability to the polluter

concerning the soil pollution. That is, not only the polluter who cause the

immediate pollution but also the polluter who buys the facility for the

control of soil pollution is liable. For example, the buyer of a factory site is

liable although the soil pollution was caused by the seller of the factory

site.

As to this case, as the Soil Environment Conservation Act provides strict

liability to the polluter, the scope of the polluters liability was the main

issue. In this case, the plaintiff was liable because the plaintiff bought the

factory site from Hanguk Choelgang. However, the pollution was caused by

Hanguk Cheolgang, not by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not responsible

for the immidiate soil pollution.

Of course, Soil Environment Conservation Act contains the exception of

the polluters strict liaility. According to the Soil Environment Conservation

Act, if the buyer did not know the soil pollution or the buyer was infallible

when buying the site, the buyer is not responsible for the soil pollution.

But, the buyers unknownness or infallibility is not easily recognized by

the Supreme Court. A number of the Supreme Courts precedents have

shown that the buyer of the facility for the control of soil pollution is liable

21

for the soil pollution. Therefore, the scope of the exemption from

responsibility is narrowly set up by the Supreme Court.

In this point, the polluters liability in Soil Environment Conservation Act

is mainly discussed concerning the scope of the liability. Whether the

factory site could be included in the facility for the control of soil pollution

is also issued in this case. In this context, these question was treated under

several heads. Concerning this case, the Constitutional Courts decision and

CERCLA(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability) was throughly reviewed concerning this case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Keywords : Soil Environment Conservation Act, facility for the control of

soil pollution, strict liability, polluter, CERCLA(Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act)

: , , , ,

Sogang Law Review


Sogang Law School

2015 9 8 23-56

23

(FCPA: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)

Compliance program 1)

2)

. . FCPA . FCPA 1.

2.

. FCPA 1. - ADR

2. -

3.

4.

. FCPA Compliance Program 1. FCPA Compliance Program

2. Compliance Program

3. SEC Compliance Program


.

1) 2 KCLAA

2) 6

24

8

.

. 2012 GDP

10%, 13% , 50% .3)

(Foreign Corruptions Practices Act, FCPA)

, 8

FCPA .

.

. FCPA

. 2014 4 FCPA 10

,4)

.

FCPA ,

FCPA .

FCPA

. FCPA

.

,

. FCPA

,

Compliance Program .

( SEC) Compliance Program

3) , : , http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=

DT_2KAA806&conn_path=I2, : 2013. 09. 30.

4) FCPA Blog, Correction: H-P disgorgement is 11th biggest, http://www.fcpablog.com/blog

/2014/4/10/correction-h-p-disgorgement-is-11th-biggest.html, last modified April 10, 2014.

http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2014/4/10/correction-h-p-disgorgement-is-11th-biggest.html

25


Compliance program

, Compliance Program

.

. FCPA

1974 Watergate

.

,5) 400

.6)

1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

.

FCPA , .

. 2014

FCPA 10

, Siemens 2008 8

,7) .

FCPA ,

.8) 2010 7 3

,

.

5) , Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , , Vol.669(2012): 56.6) A. Carl Kotchian, The Pay off: Lockheeds 70-Day Mission to Tokyo, The Saturday Review, July

9, 1977, pp.6-13.

7) FCPA Blog, Correction: H-P disgorgement is 11th biggest, .

8) Philip H. Hilder, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Issues: Leading Lawyers on Responding

to Recent FCPA Enforcement Actions, Maintaining an Effective Compliance Program, and Navigating

Risk in Emerging Markets, Understanding FCPA Compliance Requirements: A Guide for Global

Companies, Thomson Reuters: Aspatore, 2010, p.104.

26

8

.9)

, .

(NPAs: Non-Prosecution Agreements), (DPAs: Deferred Prosecution

Agreements)

.

, Compliance Program .10)

.11)

, FCPA

,

.

. FCPA

FCPA (anti-bribery provision) (accounting provision)

.

.12)

(books and records) ,

(internal control) .

9) , , , - (FCPA)

, , 2013, 14.

10) U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, A Resource Guide to

the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, November, 2012, p.56.

11) , , , , 13.

12) Robert W. Tarun, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Handbook: A Practical Guide for Multinational General Counsel, Transactional Lawyers and White Collar Criminal Practitioners, American Bar Association, 2010, p.7.

27


Compliance program

.

1.

1) (Issuer)13)

(Issuer) 1934 12 ,14)

15(d) ,15)

, ,

.16) , , ,

, .

Issuer .

FCPA

ADR(American Depositary Receipt) ,

.

.

, (interstate commerce)

FCPA .

, ,

, , .17)

, , FCPA

.

.

13) 15U.S.C.78dd-1

14) 15U.S.C.78l.

15) 15U.S.C.78o(d).

16) , , , , 18.

17) , 18.

28

8

2) (Domestic Concern)18)

FCPA

. , (i) ,

, (ii) , (iii)

, , , .

FCPA .

3) (Foreign Non-resident)19)

, 1998

. ,

.

, .20)

FCPA

.

.21)

18) 15U.S.C.78dd-2.19) 15U.S.C.78dd-3.

20) O'Melveny & Myers, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Handbook, Sixth Edition, O'Melveny & Myers LLP., 2009, p.10.

21) Lucida A. Low, Claudius O. Sokenu & Donald Zarin, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 2008:

Coping with Heightened Enforcement Risks, Practising Law Institute, 2008, p.38.

29


Compliance program

4) , , , , (Officers, Directors, Employees,

Agents, and Stockholders)22)

,

, , , , FCPA

.

, , FCPA

.

, .

, (i)

(ii)

(iii) (iv)

.23)

2.

1) : (corruptly)

(business purpose)

. (i)

(ii)

(iii)

22) 15U.S.C.78DD-1(a), 15U.S.C78DD-2(a), 15U.S.C78DD-3(a) or for any officer, directors,

employee, or agent of.

23) , , 68.

30

8

(iv)

FCPA .

, .

,

, , .24)

2) : (anything of value)

, .

.25)

3) : , (directly or indirectly)

,

. , , , , ,

26)

.

4) : (to a foreign official)

FCPA (i) (ii)

(iii) .27)

24) , , , , 25.

25) Amy Deen Westbrook, Enthusiastic Enforcement, Informal Legislation: The Unruly Expansion of

the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Georgia Law Review, Winter, 2011, p.538.

26) David Issak, FCPA Compliance - Navigating the Minefield of Intermediaries, International Trade

Law Journal, Winter, 2008, p.22.

27) 15 U.S.C78dd-1(a)(3)

31


Compliance program

.28)

. FCPA

FCPA

FCPA .

FCPA ,

.

1. -ADR

(Issuer) FCPA

, (ADR) .

, .29)

, ADR

.

ADR

, FCPA . [ 1] 2014 ADR

. FCPA 1

, FCPA .30)

28) , , 71.

29) Wikipedia, s.v. Depositary receipt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depositary_receipt, last modified

by July 2, 2014.

30) , , , [ FCPA] , FCPA ,

, 2014. 4. 30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depositary_receipt

32

8

[ 1] ADR 31)

DR NASDAQ ADR 2005 OTC ADR 2010 OTC ADR 2005KB NYSE ADR 1996S-Oil OTC ADR 2002S-Oil 1 OTC ADR 2002 NYSE ADR 1996 NYSE ADR 1999 NYSE ADR 1999 NYSE ADR 1994LG NYSE ADR 2004SK NYSE ADR 1995 OTC ADR 2003 OTC ADR 2009 OTC ADR 2005 NYSE ADR 1994

Statoil ASA ADR FCPA

. 2006

1,050 3 .

ADR ,

.32) ADR

FCPA .

2. -

1)

FCPA 3 (, , ,

31) , , , .

32) Department of Justice, U.S. Resolves Probe Against Oil Company that Bribed Iranian Official,

October 13, 2006.

33


Compliance program

)

. 3 FCPA

,

.

2012 .

, , 3,298(27.5%),

.33)

, FCPA

. Compliance

Program 3 .

[ 2] (2012 )

(: )

11 12 11 12 11 12

2,502 2,666 6,757 7,205 6.6 2.7 2.7 1,810 1,897 4,652 4,882 4.9 2.6 2.6 110 113 371 388 4.6 3.4 3.4 155 186 537 609 13.4 3.5 3.3 62 58 301 295 -2.0 4.9 5.1 145 157 352 371 5.4 2.4 2.4 44 46 146 152 4.1 3.3 3.3

(: , 2012 )

3. 34) - IBM Korea

IBM Korea

33) , 2012 , 2013 11, 6-7.

34) , IBM 1 , , 2011. 3. 20.

34

8

. FCPA ,

.

IBM-Korea LG-IBM( ) 1998 2003

PC

21 , . SEC

IBM 1998 2002 IBM

, .

,

.

IBM 2005 ,

2009 2 IBM 100

.

SEC IBM

, IBM

,

. FCPA

Affirmative Defense35) , IBM

.36) 2011 3 IBM

1000 . 2011

, 2 2013 Richard

35) 15 U.S.C 78DD-1(C)(2)(a), 15 U.S.C 78DD2-(C)(2)(a)

(a) (i) .

(1) , , , ,

(2) , , , ,

(A) ,

(B)

36) Richard L. Cassin, IBM Pays $10 Million In SEC Settlement, FCPA Blog, March 18, 2011.

35


Compliance program

Leon IBM .

IBM Compliance Program FCPA

.37)

3.

1) FCPA

FCPA , ,

, FCPA .

FCPA

.

FCPA

. FCPA .

,

.

,

37) Richard L. Cassin, Finally, a thumbs up for IBM settlement, FCPA Blog, July 26, 2013.

36

8

. ,

,

. .

FCPA

. FCPA

, SEC

.38)

2)

39)

, FCPA .

2000 10% 2010

1/4 .

(CPI: Corruption Perceptions Index)40)

80, 46

.

, FCPA

.

38) Obiamaka P. Madubuko, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Issues: Leading Lawyers on Responding to Recent FCPA Enforcement Actions, Maintaining an Effective Compliance Program, and Navigating Risk in Emerging Markets, Emerging Markets: Risky Business or Golden Opportunities?, Thomson Reuters: Aspatore, 2010, p.88.

39) , OECD , 2006 9, , 2006,

31.

40) Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index 2013, Transparency International,

2013, 3, (CPI: Corruption Perceptions Index) (TI: Transparency

International) , ( , )

.

37


Compliance program

[ 3]

(: %)

EU

2000 21.9 11.9 14.4 10.7

2005 14.5 8.4 15.5 21.7

2010 10.6 6 11.4 24.8

(: IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics, 2013)

FCPA

SEC . [ 4] 2014 7 FCPA

1 5 .

39 2 4

.

.

.

[ 4] FCPA

1 39

2 9

2 9

3 7

4 6

(: FCPA Blog, Country Count for the Corporate Investigations List, July 2014)

4.

FCPA

. ,

, , ,

38

8

.41) , , , ,

.

,42)

, , .43)

.

, FIDIC

.44)

,

, , (Department

of Health and Human Services, HHS), (Food and Drug Administration,

FDA) .45)

FCPA , FCPA

.

. FCPA Compliance Program

SEC

41) Obiamaka P. Madubuko, , p.86.

42) , , 1995, 56. 43) 7 ( )

. ,

, ,

() () .

44) , , . FIDIC , 22 1. 2013. 13.

45) , (), ,

2013, 5-23.

39


Compliance program

, Compliance Program .46)

FCPA Compliance Program

. Compliance

Program , SEC

Compliance Program Compliance

Program .

1. FCPA Compliance Program

FCPA

.47)

, 2011 48)

.

,

.

46) , , , , 55.

47) , .

5 ( )

(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FCPA ),

(UK Bribery Act 2010), OECD

(4

) .

48) 54213 ( )

54213 1

5 . ,

.

.

39 ( )

54213 1

5 . ,

.

40

8

, .

, Compliance Program .

FCPA

. SEC Compliance Program

.49) FCPA

Compliance Program ,

FCPA Compliance Program

.


1)

Compliance Program ( CP)

2001 7 . CP

, ,

. CP , , , , .50)

2) CP 51)

CP .

49) U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, op. cit., p.56.

50) , , , 2010, 5.

51) , CP 7 , http://www.kfcf.or.kr/cp/cp_02.jsp, :2014.7.22.

41


Compliance program

(1)

.

(2) ,

CP

, .

(3)

(Compliance Manual)

.

(4)

, 2

.

(5)

(Audit), (Supervision), (Reporting)

( ) , .

1

.

42

8

(6)

.

(7)

.

CP CP ,

, CP

.

3)

CP CP

. CP CP ,

CP .

CP CP 1

. CP CP

, .52)

4)

CP ,

CP . CP

52) , , 7-9.

43


Compliance program

. CP

, CP ,

.53)

(2012 )

CP

(2014 9 )

3,602,476

360,394 214 0.0594%

, , 1,605 4 0.2492%

109,201 24 0.0220%

(,) 941,895 82 0.0087%

364,209 8 0.0022%

, 33,964 18 0.0530%

, 41,627 33 0.0793%

12,007 2 0.0167%

1,737,574 12 0.0007%

(: - , CP - )

[ 5] CP

CP ,

CP .

[ 5] CP

0.5% . FCPA

CP

CP .

CP

. CP FCPA , CP

. CP

SEC CP

53) , , 16.

44

8

.

3. SEC Compliance Program 54)

SEC FCPA

CP ,

.

1) Compliance Program

CP ,

, ,

.

2) Compliance

, ,

.

.

3) , ,

CP .

,

.

54) U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, op. cit., pp.56-63.

45


Compliance program

4)

SEC CP

.

5)

Training Program ,

, .

6)

,

. CP

, .

7) 3

3 ,

, 3 CP

, 3 .

8)

CP

.

46

8

9)

.

10) , ,

, CP

FCPA .


1)

CP . CP

CP

.

FCPA CP

, FCPA CP

. CP

CP ,

. CP FCPA

, CP

.

CP .

47


Compliance program

CP

CP

.

SEC FCPA

,

CP .

, FCPA

CP .

2) -

,

. ,

. Agent

.

,

. SEC

. 3 4) CP

, ,

.55)

. ,

. ,

55) Ibid., p.59.

48

8

56) .

, ,

.

,

.

. FCPA CP

.

FCPA

,

.57) ,

.

,

. , Compliance

,

.

56) , , http://www.kosca.or.kr/law_info/const_lawinfo.asp?area=00,

:2014.7.22.

57) U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, op. cit., p.59.

49


Compliance program

3) -

.

, CP List-Up

.

FCPA CP

.58)

.

, ,

.

Compliance ,

.

. FCPA .

.

IBM

.59) FCPA ,

, ,

.60)

CP ,

58) Ibid., p.57.

59) Richard L. Cassin, IBM Pays $10 Million In SEC Settlement, FCPA Blog, March 18, 2011.

60) 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(2)(A)

50

8

.61) CP

.

,

,

.

3

.

, Agency

. FCPA

,

.62) 3

, CP

.

, FCPA

.

List-Up

,

.

3 FCPA

.63)

61) , CP 7 , http://www.kfcf.or.kr/cp/cp_02.jsp, : 2014.7.22.

62) 78DD1-(a), 78DD2-(a), 78DD3-(a) or for any officer, directors, employee, or agent of.

63) , 14 1 1, 3

14 ()

3 .

1. 3 FCPA

51


Compliance program

.

FCPA , FCPA

CP .

,

ADR ,

.

, FCPA

.

, FCPA

.

CP SEC , CP

. FCPA CP ,

-

. CP ,

FCPA

CP .

.

.

FCPA

. FCPA

, CP ,

3. 3 ,

52

8

FCPA

.

[]

, CP 7 , http://www.kfcf.or.kr/cp/cp_02.jsp.

, OECD . ,

2006.

, : ,

http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_2KAA806&conn_path=I2.

, ,

http://www.kosca.or.kr/law_info/const_lawinfo.asp?area=00.

, , . (FCPA) , 2013.

, , , 1995. , , , FIDIC ,

, 22 1, 2013. , , , [ FCPA] ,

FCPA

, , 2014. 4. 30., , , 2010.

, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , , Vol.669, 2012.

, [ ] FCP , , 2013. 12. 19.

, 2012 ,

53


Compliance program

, 2013. 11. 28.

, (),

, 2013.

[]

A. Carl Kotchian, The Pay off: Lockheed's 70-Day Mission to Tokyo. The

Saturday Review, July 9, 1977.

Amy Deen Westbrook, Enthusiastic Enforcement, Informal Legislation: The

Unruly Expansion of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Georgia Law

Review. Winter, 2011.

David Issak, FCPA Compliance - Navigating the Minefield of Intermediaries.

International Trade Law Journal, Winter, 2008.

Department of Justice, U.S. Resolves Probe Against Oil Company that Bribed

Iranian Official, October 13, 2006.

FCPA Blog, Correction: H-P disgorgement is 11th biggest., last modified April

10, 2014, www.fcpablog.com, http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2014/4/10/

correction-h-p-disgorgement-is-11th-biggest.html.

Lucida A. Low, Claudius O. Sokenu & Donald Zarin. The Foreign Corrupt

Practices Act 2008: Coping with Heightened Enforcement Risks, Practising

Law Institute 2008.

O'Melveny & Myers, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Handbook Sixth Edition,

O'Melveny & Myers LLP. 2009.

Obiamaka P. Madubuko, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Issues:

Leading Lawyers on Responding to Recent FCPA Enforcement Actions,

Maintaining an Effective Compliance Program, and Navigating Risk in Emerging

Markets. Emerging Markets: Risky Business or Golden Opportunities?,

Thomson Reuters: Aspatore, 2010.

Philip H. Hilder, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Issues: Leading

http://www.fcpablog.comhttp://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2014/4/10/correction-h-p-disgorgement-is-11th-bigges

54

8

Lawyers on Responding to Recent FCPA Enforcement Actions, Maintaining

an Effective Compliance Program, and Navigating Risk in Emerging

Markets. Understanding FCPA Compliance Requirements: A Guide for Global

Companies., Thomson Reuters: Aspatore, 2010.

Robert W. Tarun, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Handbook: A Practical

Guide for Multinational General Counsel, Transactional Lawyers and

White Collar Criminal Practitioners, American Bar Association, 2010.

Richard L. Cassin, IBM Pays $10 Million In SEC Settlement, FCPA Blog,

March 18, 2011.

Richard L. Cassin, Finally, a thumbs up for IBM settlement, FCPA Blog,

July 26, 2013.

Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index 2013, Transparency

International, 2013.

U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, A

Resource Guide to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, November,

2012.

55


Compliance program

ABSTRACT

The Possible Application of U.S. Foreign Corrupt

Practices Act to South Korean companies and

Guidance for Compliance Program

Minyoung Park

Given the country's high dependence on trade, it is critically necessary

for South Korean companies to have a high degree of understanding of

foreign laws and regulations along with international law. Among various

acts, there has been a particular and growing attention paid to the U.S.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) in recent years. While there

is a high possibility that the FCPA can be applied to non-U.S. companies,

most Korean companies are not aware of the importance of complying with

the FCPA. The purpose of this research is to examine the possible

application of the FCPA to South Korean companies and provide a

guideline for establishing a FCPA compliance program.

The first section of this research outlines the historical background of the

legislation and the recent trends in FCPA enforcement. Many non-U.S.

companies have recently paid large civil penalty fines for violations of the

act. However, companies have been rewarded with deferred prosecution

and non-prosecution agreements for self-disclosing and implementation of

remedial action. An implementation of effective compliance program now

becomes a critical part for legal risk management since the regulatory

56

8

authorities assess the adequacy of the program to determine their actions.

The FCPA addresses the problem of international corruption in two ways:

the anti-bribery provision and the accounting provision. The second section

of this research focuses on the anti-bribery provision. Based on the analysis

of the provision, the third section examines the possible application of the

FCPA to Korean companies.

The last section of this research provides the guideline of compliance

program for Korean companies. Since adequate compliance program may

decrease the likelihood of an enforcement action, implementation of the

program is the effective way to avoid liability of under the FCPA.

This section discusses how many companies introduce the FCPA

compliance program and their current conditions. Considering the basic

elements of the program under the recommendation of regulatory

authorities, this research suggests the improvement measures for the FCPA

compliance program of Korean companies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Keywords : FCPA, compliance program, compliance officer, overseas

expansion, application of foreign laws to Korean companies,

governor corruption, ADR, developing country

: , Compliance Program, ,

, , , ADR,

Sogang Law Review


Sogang Law School

2015 9 8 57-79

57

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

1)

. 1. -

2. -

. 1.

2. ICSID 'double keyhole approach'

3. ICSID 25 1)

2) Salini Test 3) Salini Test 4)

4. 1) 2) 3)

5.

. 1.

2.

3.

.

1) 6

58

8

.

1. -

,

.

,

.2) , (BIT) (FTA)

-

.

,

.3) 4)

.5) - ( ISDS)6)

.7)

2014 6 93 ,8) -

2) World Bank, World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone, World Bank, 2004, pp.178-179.

3) , : ICSID ,

55 2, , 2014.6, 195.4) (BIT) (FTA)

.

5) World Bank, op. cit., p.179.6) ISD .

7) 13, , , 2012, 15.8) , (2014.6), http://www.mofa.go.kr/trade/economy/

agreement/status/index.jsp?menu=m_30_160_10&tabmenu=t_2, : 2015.1.20.

59

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

(FTA) -

. , (Lone Star)

( ICSID)

.9)

2. -

2013 89

,10) 2008

(OECD ) .11)

2006 ,12) 2010

10% .13) , 2001

2010 (sovereign risk:

) , ,

. ,

.

ISDS

. ,

. ,

. ,

. , ,

.14) -

9) LSF-KEB Holdings SCA and others v. Republic of Korea, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/37.10) CIA, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/

2079rank.html, : 2015.1.20.

11) OECD, OECD Economic Outlook, No. 96, OECD, 2014.12) , 2013, , 2014.1, 155.13) , 160.

60

8

ISDS

. 2006 6

2001 ICSID

,15) 2012 Potov Banka .16) ICSID 17)

,18)

ISDS

.

, ISDS

. ISDS ,

, 19)

ISDS .

,

.

, .

,

, ISDS

.

14) Michael Waibel, Sovereign Defaults before International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp.211-212.

15) Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5.16) Potov banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8.17) (Convention on the Settlement of Investment

Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States) , 1967 3 23

234 .; , ICSID , , 2006, 1.18) 2013 3,465 7 ,

(, , , ) 3,229 93.2% . ,

6,018 .; , , https://ecos.bok.or.kr/, : 2015.1.20.

19) - ( )

, .; UNCTAD, UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreement: Scope and Definition, United Nations, 1999, p.7.

61

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

.

1.

ICSID

(jurisdiction ratione personae:

), (jurisdiction ratione materiae: ),

(jurisdiction ratione voluntatis: ICSID

), (jurisdiction ratione temporis: ICSID

) .20)

, ,

. ,

ICSID

? .21) ,

ISDS .

ICSID .

2. ICSID double keyhole approach

ICSID 25 1 ICSID ,22)

20) Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award (2009), para.54.21) , 5 ICSID ,

43, , 2009. 2, 487, .22) ICSID 25 1:

( )

.

62

8

(any legal dispute arising

directly out of an investment) ,

.

, ,

.23)

ICSID , ICSID 25

,

(double keyhole approach) .24)

.

3. ICSID 25

1)

ICSID ,

. ,

.25)

ICSID

.

ICSID Convention Article 25 (1): The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute

arising directly out of an investment, between an Contracting State (or any constituent

subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a

national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to

submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its

consent unilaterally.

23) Rudolph Dolzer and Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2012, p.61.

24) Christopher F. Dugan et al., Investor-State Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.259.25) Christoph Schreuer et al., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd ed, Cambridge University

Press, 2009, pp.114-117.

63

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

, . Fedax v. Venezuela

26) .

2) Salini Test

Salini v. Morocco 27)

( ) , , ,

.28)

.

Salini Test .

? Fedax v. Venezuela

.29) ,

,

.30)

, ,

, ,31)

. .

26) Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (1997), para.43.

27) Salini Costruttori SpA v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (2001), para.50-58.

28) C. Schreuer et. al., op. cit., p.128 . ,

.

29) Fedax v. Venezuela, para.40.30) M. Waibel, op. cit., pp.237-238.31) Frank J. Fabozzi, Bond Markets, Analysis, and Strategies, 5th ed, Pearson Education, Inc., 2004,

pp.6-9.

64

8

,

. Fedax v. Venezuela 32)

CSOB v. Slovakia 33)

.

,

.34) Abaclat v. Argentina

,

.35) ,

,

. ,

.

3) Salini Test

Salini Test ,

. , Salini

Test ,36)

. Pantechniki v. Albania

Douglas37) Salini Test

32) Fedax v. Venezuela, para.42.33) Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4,

Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (1999), para.88.

34) M. Waibel, op. cit., pp.231-234.35) Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction

and Admissibility (2011), para.378.

36) R. Dolzer and C. Schreuer, op. cit., pp.133-134.37) Zachary Douglas, The International Law of Investment Claims, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.190.

65

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

.38) Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania ICSID

Salini Test , Salini Test

. Malaysian Historical Salvors v. Malaysia

.39)

4)

, ICSID

. ,

ICSID

. ICSID

Salini Test ,

.40)

. , Abaclat v.

Argentina Salini Test ICSID

.41) Salini Test ,

.

38) Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v. The Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award (2009), para.36.

39) Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award (2008), para.312-318; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment (2009), para.79.

40) C. F. Dugan et al., op. cit., pp.255-256; , ICSID , 55 2, , 2010. 6.

41) Abaclat v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, para.364.

66

8

4.

1)

.42)

. (investment)

(every kind of asset) ,

.43)

(sovereign bond) , (debt instrument),

(bond) ,44)

. ,

.

, , , ,

. .45)

?

46) 47) .

42) Kenneth J. Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.122.

43) Ibid., p.122; US Model BIT 2012 , FTA (11) .

44) US Model BIT 2012, - BIT (bond)

.

45) - FTA , - CEPA .

46) Waibel, op. cit., p.246.47) Z. Douglas, op. cit., p.183.

67

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

2)

US Model BIT 2012 - FTA 48)

,

.49)

Salini Test .

. ,

.50)

3)

,

, . , ICSID

,51) 52)

. 31 1 ,

,

.53) ? Black's Law Dictionary

48) US Model BIT 2012 - FTA ( ).

49) - FTA 11.28:

, , ,

, .; , - FTA , http://www.ftahub.go.kr/webmodule/_PSD_FTA/us/doc/k_fulltext.pdf, : 2015.1.20.

50) , , , - ICSID

, 8 2, , 2010.11, 156-157. .

51) Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. Slovakia; Fedax v. Venezuela; Abaclat v. Argentina .

52) , , , UN

1969 (The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) .

53) Article 31(1) of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A treaty shall be interpreted in

68

8

(investment) ,

54) (fixed-dollar investment)

, (bonds held to maturity),

(government securities) .55)

.

, ,

.

31 2 4

, ,

.

5.

ICSID 25

(territorial link) .

56)

, .57) ,

good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their

context and in the light of its object and purpose (emphasis added); , , http://www.mofa.go.kr/incboard/faimsif/mltltrl_popup.jsp?KOEN_ID= E0DC387149742F354925678600196178&ITEM_PARENT_ID=8E58C8F1D46CC7AA492565ED00031

902, : 2015.1.20.

54) An expenditure to acquire property or assets o produce revenue; a capital outlay; Bryan A.

Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed, West Publishing Co., 2014, p.954.55) An investment whose face value is the same when sold as it was when purchased. Examples

are bonds held to maturity, certain government securities, and savings accounts.; Ibid., p.954.56) ICSID, ICSID Reports. - Vol. 1: Reports of Cases Decided under the Convention on the

Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965, Cambridge University Press, 1993, reprinted 2005, p.25.

57) ICSID 25

. Waibel, op. cit., p.238. .

69

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

(covered investments)

.58)

,

.59)

, (

) ,

.

( )

.

CSOB v. Slovakia

.60)

.

Abaclat v. Argentina ()

, ,

/

.61)

, ,

. Abaclat v. Argentina 1

.

,

,

58) - BIT, US Model BIT 2012

, - FTA , () .

59) M. Waibel, op. cit., p.239.60) Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. Slovakia, para.79.61) Abaclat v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, para.372-378.

70

8

,

. , ,

, .62)

,

.

, .

,

.

,

,

.

.

1.

, ISDS .63)

,

.

. ,

62) Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Dissenting Opinion, Georges Abi-Saab (2011), para.72-82.

63) Yuval Shany, The Competing Jurisdiction of International Courts and Tribunals, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.24.

71

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

ISDS

.

ISDS ,

ISDS

.

2.

64), 65), 66) . ISDS

,

, ISDS

. ,

ISDS

.

. ICSID

.67)

68) ,

. ,

64) , .

, .; , -(ISD) , , 2014.4, 207-208.

65) .; C.

F. Dugan et al., op. cit., p.368.66) .; ,

, 58.

67) , , 1, , 2007, 192.68) M. Waibel, op. cit., p.257.

72

8

, ISDS ()

, .

,69)

.

3.

. (exclusive)

, .70)

, ISDS

. (forum selection clause)

.

,

,

.71)

.

ICSID ,

69) , , 11 1, , 2013.3, 129.

70) . The parties agree that any claim or suit which may arise in relation

hereto or to the Bonds issued shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts and

Tribunals of Country X, and expressly waive any other venue to which they may be entitled.;

M. Waibel, op. cit., p.260.71) Abaclat v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, para.379, 409; AES

Corporation v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, Decision on Jurisdiction (2005).

73

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

25

,

,

. ICSID

. ,

ISDS

. ,

.

2008

. 2010 , , , ,

( ) ,

2015 .

.

.

ISDS

. ISDS

,

.

.

,

.

, ,

. , ICSID .

.

74

8

[ ]

, - ICSID ,

8 2, , 2010. 11., 5 ICSID

, 43, , 2009. 2. 13, , , 2012., ICSID , 55 2,

, 2010. 6.

, : ICSID

, 55 2, , 2014. 6.

, , 11 1, , 2013.3.

, , 1, , 2007.

Dolzer, Rudolph and Schreuer, Christoph, Principles of International

Investment Law, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2012.

Douglas, Zachary, The International Law of Investment Claims, Cambridge

University Press, 2009.

Dugan, Christopher F. et al., Investor-State Arbitration, Oxford University

Press, 2008.

Fabozzi, Frank J., Bond Markets, Analysis, and Strategies, 5th ed, Pearson

Education, Inc., 2004.

Garner, Bryan A., Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed, West Publishing Co.,

2014.

75

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Reports. -

Vol. 1: Reports of Cases Decided under the Convention on the

Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other

States, 1965, Cambridge University Press, 1993, reprinted 2005.

Schreuer, Christoph, et al., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd ed,

Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Shany, Yuval, The Competing Jurisdiction of International Courts and

Tribunals, Oxford University Press, 2003.

UNCTAD, UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreement:

Scope and Definition, New York and Geneva: United Nations, 1999.

Vandevelde, Kenneth J., Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and

Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2010.

Waibel, Michael, Sovereign Defaults before International Courts and

Tribunals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

[]

, 2013, , 2014., -(ISD) , , 2014., ICSID , , 2006.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Economic

Outlook, No. 96, OECD, 2014.

World Bank, World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate

for Everyone, World Bank, 2004.

[ ]

Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5.

AES Corporation v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17.

Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case

76

8

No. ARB/05/22.

Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case

No. ARB/97/4.

Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3.

LSF-KEB Holdings SCA and others v. Republic of Korea, ICSID Case No.

ARB/12/37.

Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. The Government of Malaysia,

ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10.

Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v. The Republic of

Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21.

Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5.

Potov banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8.

[ ]

, (2014.6.), http://www.mofa.go.kr/ trade/economy/agreement/status/index.jsp?menu=m_30_160_10&tabmenu=t_2.

, , http://www.mofa.go.kr/incboard/faimsif/ mltltrl_popup.jsp?KOEN_ID=E0DC387149742F354925678600196178&ITEM_P

ARENT_ID=8E58C8F1D46CC7AA492565ED00031902.

, - FTA , http://www.ftahub.go.kr/webmodule/_PSD_FTA/ us/doc/k_fulltext.pdf.

, , https://ecos.bok.or.kr.Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/

publications/ the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html.

77

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

ABSTRACT

Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction over Sovereign

Bonds Within the Regime of Investor-State Dispute

Settlement

- focusing on the ICSID arbitration cases -

Hyocheol Shin

Since the global financial crisis in 2008, sovereign risk and fiscal

sustainability of the countries have become prominent factors in

international capital market, while a great variety of disputes occurred over

investments involving sovereign bonds. Governments and foreign investors

can both benefit from the use of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)

that includes prior consent to investment arbitration. Since investment

arbitration could possess many advantages over judgments by national

courts, an increased number of sovereign bondholders are expected to

initiate arbitration against sovereign issuers, i.e. countries. However,

jurisdiction ratione materiae in ICSID tribunals over debt and financial

instruments has been a subject for argument due to the absence of a

definition of the term investment in the ICSID Convention.

In most cases, ICSID tribunals have adopted dual jurisdictional

requirements in determining whether they have jurisdiction ratione materiae

over such instruments. This so-called double keyhole approach requires

the claimant to demonstrate the qualification of the investment under both

the definition contained in the investment treaty and the definitional criteria

78

8

developed for purposes of the ICSID Convention.

The sovereign bondholders share with the issuer country a variety of

risks including interest rate risk, liquidity risk and the risk of sudden fiscal

instability of the country in particular. Also, the funds generated from the

sovereign bond issuance are ultimately made available to the issuer country,

and served to finance the country's economic development. Therefore, the

sovereign bonds can meet the definitional criteria that ICSID tribunals have

developed for purposes of the ICSID Convention.

According to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of

Treaties of 1969, a treaty shall be interpreted in accordance with the

ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and

in the light of its object and purpose. Given the ordinary meaning of the

term investment contained in the treaty and the purpose of the investment

treaty, sovereign bonds can fall under the typical investment treaty.

Sovereign bonds are issued and guaranteed by the country, according to

its laws. Since the trading platform and the physical location of the investor

does not change the nature of debt instrument, a territorial link can be

found between the bonds and the issuer country.

Fork-in-the-road provision contained in the investment treaty cannot

exclude jurisdiction in ICSID tribunals because the causes of actions are

usually different between domestic lawsuit and international investment

arbitration. Likewise, exclusive domestic jurisdiction clause, occasionally

found in sovereign bonds, does not prevent arbitral tribunals from

treaty-based claims. Consequently, sovereign bonds can fall under ICSID's

jurisdiction in principal.

79

- (ISDS)

- (ICSID) -

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Keywords : Investment-State Dispute Settlement, investment arbitration,

ICSID, investment, sovereign bond, jurisdiction, admissibility

: - , ISDS, , ,

ICSID , , ,

Sogang Law Review


Sogang Law School

2015 9 8 81-98

81

1)

. 1.

2.

. 1.

2.

3.

. 1.

2.

3.

4.

.

.

1.

2006 7 1, 10 .

1) ,

82

8

, ,

4

.

,

.

,

( )

.

2006 ,

,

.

,

.

,

.()

.

,

. 10

.

.

83

2.

. 1) /

, 2) .

, , ,

.

. 2)

1.

1)

.

50 4 9 ,

2001 .

() , ,

.3)

2) , .

3) , , , 2013, 18.

84

8

2)

(1) 1 ()

1995.1.5 ( 4923) , ,

. 4 .

(2) 2 ()

1999.2.5 ( 5798) WTO , IMF

, 21

, . 5

(22, 24, 242, 38, 40)

.

(3) 3 ()

2000.1.28 ( 6249) 2001 12 31

10 IMF

. 59

14 11 , 2011 12 31

.

85

2.

2000

.

,

.

,

,

. .

, 13 112, 17 11 59 2 53

. .

3.

1)

2003 .

1,

()

,

. 2, (1 2) , , ,

, . 3

86

8

, 1 2

. , , , ,

.

2005 8

.

() , 2005 , 2006 7

. 17 363 .

2)

2007.8.3 ( 8586)

2 1 , 2009.3.25 3

2 .

5

.

() ,

, ,

,

.

87

.

1.

( ) 1 .

,

,

.

,

.4)

,

.

.

, ,

.

.

.

4) , , 2010, 26.

88

8

2.

1)

,

.

. ,

() (

) .5)

.

, ,

, . .6) ,

7),

.

2)

4000

.

5) , , 45.

6) , :

, Vol.10 No.2, , 2008, 93-113. 7) , : Two-Level

, Vol.35, , 2011, 237-278.

89

.8)

,

.

3% .

.9)

.

3)

.

20051190

(2006. 1. 11. 7847, 2006. 7. 1. ) 3 (2006. 2. 21. 7849, 2006. 7. 1. ) 15 12( )10)

.

20051190 2005 12 25

.

8) , , , 2014, 186.9) , , , 2011. 8. 12.

10) 15( )

21 32 .

( ) ,

, .

90

8

,

() ,

.

,

.

,

.11)

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.

,

.

.

11) , , 7 3, 2006, 369-396.

91

292 1,

(1),

(2), (3),

(4),

(5)

( )

, ,

.

3 1 , 292 294

( ) ,

(1), 100 10 (2)

,

.

, ,

.

. 298(

) 3062( )

.

2

,

550m 600m

.12)

,

92

8

.

20m 50 240m

.13)

.

4.

,

,

.

12 400

. , . ,

.

,

.

.

75 95 . ,

.

12) (), , , 2011. 5. 26.

13) , , 173.

93

.14)

.

1) 15)

1182

.

. , , , , , ,

.

2) 16)

117 , . 117-1

. , , .

, .

. 118

14) , - , 10 4, 2009, 139-168.

15) , , , 2007, 382.16) , : ,

, , 2009, 29.

94

8

.

.

,

.

.

.

, , ,

, , .

.

10

,

.

,

.

,

.

,

.

95

, , 2010.

, , , 2014., , , 2013., , , 2007., (), , 2010., , , 2013., , 7 3,

2006.

, , Vol.15 No.1, 2009.

, , 64, 2014. , -

, 10 4, 2009. , :

, Vol.10 No.2, , 2008.

, : Two-Level

, Vol.35, , 2011.

, , 28 1, 2012.

, : , 10 3, 2010.

96

8

ABSTRACT

The problems of Special Act on Jeju in view of

Citizen Autonomy

So Young Chun

Jeju Special Self-Governing Province is facing 10 years anniversary

since launched. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province has done special

experiments based on special location and geopolitical characteristics as an

international tourist destination so far. For example, they've been to

establish various policies to take advantage of the island as a strategic, and

they've done various legislative actions for the development and

characterization of Jeju. One of them areSpecial Act on the Establishment

of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province And The Development of Free

International Citywhich made the Jeju what it is today.

The purpose of this law is that making Jeju Island as an economical hub

in the Northeast Asia, and improving the quality of the Jeju citizens' lives

through it. And it is supposed to achieve through the strengthening of local

government commitment that the law seeks as methodology. However, I

point out that its objective is not being achieved by some of the weaknesses

in the bill. by examining whether reasonable results has been come out in a

purpose and intent of this special law.

For this, this paper deals with the 1) enactment / revision history of Jeju

97

first, and than points out the 2) limitations and vulnerabilities of the current

law in four ways.

Each of them are issue of the purpose of the provisions, decentralization

issues, exemption provisions which causes environmental damages, relates

to the complexity of the provisions structure. The conclusion of this paper

is to illuminate how those weaknesses are inhibiting the achievement of the

purpose of that special Act.

To achieve the Original Purpose of the Act which means true Citizen

Autonomy, it has to be stated in the purpose clause that Jeju Citizen is the

subject of this law, and it is necessary to establish the general basis of the

autonomy Constitutionally guaranteed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Keywords : Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, Special Act on Jeju,

the Local Government Act, Citizen Autonomy, Proportionality

: , , , ,

Sogang Law Review


Sogang Law School

2015 9 8 99-142

99

2014 1)

2), 3), 4)

[Statement of Jurisdiction]

.

.

2

.

(ICCPR) (ESCR)

, , , ,

.

1) 2014

2) 5

3) 5

4) 5

100

8

3

.

.

(, , , )

,

( 4).

.

6

. 6

. , .

1. .

,

2. (, )

,

3.

,

4. .

1) .

, ,

101

2014

.

OECD OECD

.

NGO

.

,

,

.

2) .

,

.

[Pleadings]

.

1. .

2.

.

102

8

3. .

4. 1 , .

5. .

.

.

1. 1 4

1) -

,

.

. ,

.

.

2)

(1)

.

i)

17 2 .

, , , , ,

103

2014

, .

.(ISO 26000 6.6.7.1) ,

14 ,

, (2007)

.

ii)

1997 ,

,

30 .

.

, 30

.

.

i)

2 4

, , ,

.

,

, .

104

8

ii) FPIC

2007

( 10),

( 19), , , ,

( 28) .

, , (free, prior and informed

consent) . FPIC ,

, , ,

.

. FPIC

.

FPIC .

70 ,

, , ,

( )

. FPIC PIC ,

.

iii) .

. 6

.

, ,

105

2014

. ,

, .

7

.

,

,

.

.

iv) ,

.

, 162 2

142 6

7 ,

8

( 1988.5.24. 87388 )

.

( 2010. 4.23. 200829038)

( ). ,

106

8

.

,

.

20

.

2 1

.

11 1 2 , ,

. ,

,

,

.

, .

,

. ,

,

.

.

.

107

2014

.

60 ,

.

.

10 , 17

,

( 1990. 9. 10. 8982

, 1997. 7. 16. 956 ).

.

,

,

.

.

.

i)

(1948) 3

, 9

.

.

. ,

.

(1979)

(UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement

108

8

Officials)(1990) .

,

,

.

ii) UN

, ,

.

(1997),

77(1993), 2 (1996)

. UN

( )

.

.

UN

.

.

i)

109

2014

,

( 2001.7.27. 992970 )

,

.

ii)

,

, (

35 1).

, ,

.

,

,

. ( 2008.7.31. 2006711 ).

, ICESCR 11 1 1989 24

.

,

. .

.

ODA

110

8

.

.

.

,

( 1 1).

(

1 2).

( 2 1).

( 8 2) .

.

,

,

.

.

(2)

3 , .

111

2014

, ,

.

. , 2008 ,

, 27~50

. , , ,

.

,

.

,

.

,

.

.

.

CSR UN

UN , UN , ,

,

OECD , ISO (SR) ISO

26000 .

112

8

ISO 26000 (ISO 26000 2.26)

(ISO 26000 6.3.4.1) .

, .

i)

ISO 26000

(ISO 26000 6.6.7.1). ISO 26000

, .

30% ,

ISO 26000 .

ii)

.

,

,

(OECD 3 1).

,

(OECD

3 3).

.

113

2014

,

,

.

,

.

iii)

OECD

,

.

UN , ,

( 18).

.

,

,

.

iv)

, , ,

,

114

8

.

(OECD 6 1),

(OECD 6 2),

, ,

,

(OECD

6 4).

, 10 7 9

" ,

, ." .

(Precautionary Principle) ,

.

OECD

,

.

,

.

, 100%

.

v)

(i)

OECD 7

,

. ,

115

2014

, .

, , , , , ,

3

(OECD 7 1). ,

(OECD 7 5). , UN

10 10

.

,

OECD

UNGC .

.

(ii)

ISO 26000 ,

.

.

.

,

,

.

116

8

. 1 4

,

.

2. 2 3

1)

(Universal Court of Human Rights) 10

, ,

, , .

.

2)

(1) .

.

.

.

117

2014

,

( 1998.10.23. 97

157).

.

(2)

.

,

,

.

136

,

.

,

( 2011. 5. 26. 20113682 ).

,

. ,

.

9

.

118

8

(3) .

10

.

[Conclusion and Prayer for Relief]

.

119

2014

[]

, , 2009.

, : ,,

, 2011.

, , Global Compact Network Korea, 2010

: .

, 14, 2013.

, , , 2011.

, , , 2014.

, , 2011.

, , 2014.

, , 2006.

, , 2008.

, ISO 26000 , , 2013.

, , , 2014.

, ? -

, 2010.

[]

2 4

6, 7

(1997)

1, 2, 8

(1979)

(UN Basic Principles on

120

8

the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials)(1990)

10, 19, 28

17 2

77(1993)

14

2 (1996)

ILO169

ISO 26000 6.6.7.1

OECD

UN

[]

136

[]

2008.7.31. 2006711 .

1997.7.16. 956 .

1990.9.10. 8982 .

1990.6.25. 89109 .

2011.5.26. 20113682 .

2001.7.27. 992970 .

1998.10.23. 97157.

1988.5.24. 87388 .

2010.4.23. 200829038 .

121

2014

[]

, , , 2007.

, , 2002.

, , 2000.

, , 2014.

122

8

.

, .

,

,

.

, .

.

1.

.

6

.

.

123

2014

,

. ,

( 2012.06.14. 201220819 )

.

.

2. .

,

,

,

.

.

[Pleadings]

.

124

8

1. .

2. .

.

.

1.

1)

.

(1) -

() ' '

.

.

.

(2) .

.

.

,

, '

'

125

2014

,

" .(

2001. 6. 29. 999902 , ' ' 2006. 3. 16.

2006330 , ' ' ). '

' ( )

,

( 2010. 12. 3. 200950909 )

" 3

,

." .

- -

,

.

2)

, .

(1)

.

18 3 4 2

,

. ()

, ,

126

8

.

(2)

,

,

, ,

.

(3)

, , , ,

. ,

.

3

, 3

.

. ,

. (g/kwh) 968, 440,

127

2014

100 9 .

,

.

.

. 3

.

(4)

.

3 .

.

,

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

128

8

,

,

,

. ,

(

2007. 3. 29. 200431302 )

.

,

,

.

-

. (ISD: Investor-State Dispute Settlement)

ISD

.

,

20%

.

.

.

129

2014

3)

(1) ,

.

23 2

,

.

.

,

. 122

.(1998.12.24.89214)

. 1990

,

1998 .

23 3 ,

.

130

8

(2)

.

,

. ( 2002.12.18.20084)

,

.( 1990.6.25.89107)

, 1.5km

30

.

(3) .

, ,

.

70

.

(4) ,

.

131

2014

, ,

. ,

.

,

.

,

.

. .

(= ) .

,

.( 1997.1.16. 90

110). ,

.( 2001.11.29. 99494). 3

.

(reasonable

relationship) . ,

.

.

. ,

.

70%

20%

,

20%

132

8

.

1000

,

.

3

.

(5) ,

.

.

.

,

.

37 2 , ,

.

.

(6)

ICCPR 21 .

.

,

133

2014

(

2014. 1. 28. 2011174 ). ICCPR

,

.

, ,

. ,

ICCPR .

. ,

. ,

.

.

ICCPR 9 1

ICCPR 9 1 .

()

136

( 2005.10.28.

20044731)

.

136

144 1 .

134

8

257 ( 1999. 1. 26. 983732 ,

2000. 2. 25994305) 144 2

.

.

(7) , .

.

. ( 2006.2.23. 200419)

,

.

,

.

.

,

.

(8)

.

,

135

2014

.

,

,

.

,

.

35 1

,

,

.

,

.

(9)

.

136

8

2 2 ,

,

, , ,

. .

.

.

1 (Least Developed Country, LDC).

1970

. 20%

.

.

.

,

,

, .

.

.

4)

(1) OECD

OECD

. OECD

.

, .

137

2014

,

,

.(OECD () 2).

.

OECD

, OECD

.

, OECD .

OECD

. , ,

(OECD

() 1).

, (OECD

() 6).

.

(2) UN

UN , , , 10

. 10 10

. 10

.

, UN UN (compact)

138

8

. UN , UN

,

, ,

. UNGC (communication

on progress, COP ) . COP

UN

. UNGC COP

. UNGC CSR

. UNGC

.

.

,

,

.

(3) ISO26000

ISO 26000 , ISO 9001 ISO14001 ISO

shall ,

(Certification Body) , ,

., ISO 26000

ISO , (Recommendation)

, 'should'

. ISO/ICE ,

, ,

.

139

2014

ISO 26000 ,

, ISO 26000

.

ISO 26000 ,

.

1. ,

.

, 37 2 ,

.( 2011.10.13. 200913846) .

' '

.

,

.

.

136

.

.

,

. ( 2013.02.15. 201011281).

.

140

8

. .

.

2.

. ,

.

, .

141

2014

[]

, ISO 26000 , , 2013.

, , , 2014.

, , , 2014.

, ISO 26000

, , 2013.

[]

(Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

(International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights)

(Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms)

ISO26000

OECD

UN

[]

18 3

10 2

4 2

136, 144 12, 257

22 2 31 2 [3]

3

142

8

[]

2006.2.23. 200419 .

2002. 12. 18 20084 .

2001.11.29. 99494 .

1998. 12. 24. 89214 .

1997. 1. 16. 90110 .

1990. 6. 25. 89107 .

2011. 5. 26 201010305 .

2007. 3. 29. 200431302 .

2006. 3. 16. 2006330 .

2005.10.28. 20044731 .

2001. 6. 29. 999902 .

2000. 2. 25 994305 .

1999. 1. 26. 983732 .

2010. 12. 3. 200950909 .

[]

, - , 2014.

, , , 2011.

Sogang Law Review


Sogang Law School

2015 9 8 143-173

143

6 1)

2), 3), 4)

2014 77665

.

- -

1.

1)

.

,

1) 6 3

2) 5

3) 5

4) 5

144

8

.

2) .

(1)

.

,

( 2010. 1. 28. 2009

66990 ).

. ,

.

(2)

3 301

,

1 2

,

,

145

6

, .

(3)

.

3)

(1) .

.

2002. 3. 12. 200024184

. 1

2

2 . ,

,

. 2002. 3. 12. 200024184

,

.

,

146

8

.

,

, , 3

3

,

3 3

,

,

, 3

. ( 1998. 9. 4. 9817909 , 2003. 4. 8.

200238675 )

,

.

(2)

.

. ( 323

)

.

. ( 1968. 6. 18.

68616 ), (1960. 9. 14. 4292537)

,

147

6

( 1991. 4. 26. 901958 ).

.

(3)

.

.

4)

.

.

.

1991. 4. 26. 901958 .

,

,

. 1971.6.29. 71926

.

148

8

.

5)

, .

.

, .

.

,

(

1994. 9. 27. 941439 ) .

,

.

.

2. ()

1)

149

6

,

, ,

.

2)

.

, .

(1)

,

.

,

. (1983. 6. 28. 83399 , 1994. 8.

23. 94630 ).

,

,

150

8

() .

( 49. 12. 10)

,

.

,

. ,

,

( 1998. 1.

23. , 972506).

,

, , , ,

,

,

( 2012. 7. 26. , 20118805 ).

,

.

151

6

(2)

. .

,

.

,

.

. ()

.

3)

,

2

. .

, , , , ,

, ,

,

152

8

, , 15

,

,

.

,

,

. ,

19

.

4)

,

,

.

3. ()

1)

( 78cm,

8cm) 3 1 ,

21 1 , 21

2 3 .

153

6

2)

(1) .

3 1 ' '

,

,

'

' ( 1997. 5. 30. 97597 ),

3

( 2008. 5. 15. 20082074 ).

180cm, 100kg

78cm 8cm

,

.

1

.

(

2005. 4. 48. 2005547 ) 100, 4 5

1 70 ,

3 1 ' '

( 1999. 11. 9. 994146 ) .

, ,

154

8

3 .

(2) .

''

( 1997.05.30. 97597 ),

2

1 3

1 .

(3) 21 1

.

21 1

.

, .

,

,

. ,

.

, , ,

,

( 2006. 4. 27. 2003

155

6

4735). .

.

, ,

.

, .

.

.

( 1991. 8. 10. 9119913).

,

(180cm 100kg) (170cm, 65kg)

,

.

,

.

.

,

.

156

8

.

.

18

,

( 1984. 9. 25. 841611 ),

.

. ,

,

.

.

,

,

, .

4) 21 3

.

21 3 2 ,

, .

,

, , ,

.

157

6

21 2 3

( 1991. 5. 28. 9180, 1992. 12. 22. 92

2540 ).

.

12 ( 1974. 2.

26. 732380 ) 21 3 .

,

,

,

.

.

. 21

3 2 .

5)

3 1

. 21

1 2 ,

158

8

21 3

.

.

2014. 12. 31.

29

159

6

2014 77665

.

- -

1.

1)

, ,

.

,

.

,

.

2) , ,

323 .

160

8

.

,

( 2010. 1. 28. 200966990 ).

( 27 4)

서강 로리뷰 제8호 (2015년 9월).pdf

Documents

Transcript of 서강 로리뷰 제8호 (2015년 9월).pdf