중동에는 분쟁과 갈등이 상존해 왔다. 이 연구의 목적은 전쟁과 대립 속에 있는 아랍 세계를 향한 선교 방법론과 실천 과제들을 모색하는 것이다. 근대부터 현대까지 팔레스타인-이스라엘 분쟁, 시리아 내전과 이슬람 국가(IS), 하마스-이스라엘 전쟁은 아랍 민족들의 생존을 위협 해 왔다. 위기 속에서 아랍 민족들은 내부 도시들과 주변국으로 이동해 난민의 신분으로 살아가고 있다. 이 연구는 아랍 세계의 분쟁 가운데 아랍 민족들을 향한 선교의 실천에 초점을 맞춘다. 이를 위해, 팔레스타 인 기독교, 로잔 운동(Lausanne Movement), 세계교회협의회(WCC) 의 선교 성명서들을 고찰하고 분석한다. 선교 성명서들에 근거하여 전쟁과 대립의 현장에서 아랍 세계를 향한 선교의 실천 과제들을 도출한 다. 결론적으로, 이 연구는 분쟁과 갈등 가운데 아랍 민족들을 향해 새롭게 실천해야 할 선교적 과제들을 제시하고 있다.

In the multilateral trading systems under the WTO, the national security exception plays a crucial role in balancing trade liberalisation against the security interest of a sovereign nation. The proper use of the national security exception is of particular importance in the disputes with mixed political, diplomatic and military elements. The EU has recently accused China of breaching WTO obligations by taking restrictive trade measures against Lithuania, thereby affecting free trade between the EU and China. This paper argues that the allegation would be frustrated by the application of the WTO’s national security exception, as the dispute is rooted in Lithuania’s breach of its commitment to the One-China principle, which is crucial to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Outside the WTO ruling system, a unilaterally imposed international sanction would be insufficient to alleviate the dispute between China and Lithuania and would lead to a deadlock in the multilateral trading system.

In recent years, the use of third-party funds (TPF) in mainland China and beyond has grown significantly. Under the third-party funding model, the risks and costs of litigation or arbitration are transferred to parties outside the case. The parties with economic difficulties have a better chance of obtaining legal justice. However, the financial motives of third-party funders are not always in the interest of the parties or the courts’ need to review the cases efficiently and impartially. Therefore, appropriate regulatory measures against the potential risks of TPF are necessary. By comparing recent developments and historical backgrounds in the field of TPF in different countries, this book reveals differences in regulatory approaches to TPF in selected jurisdictions. In combination with China’s legal tradition, social conditions and empirical research, the author also offers suggestions on how to solve legal issues related to TPF in China. Against the background that the development of TPF in China is still in its infancy and China’s Arbitration Law is being revised, this book not only helps Chinese legislators formulate regulations on TPF, but also provides a great guiding tool for litigation and arbitration parties.

In recent years, globalisation has fostered ever more frequent and intimate interactions between states and societies in the Asia-Pacific region. Unfortunately, this has also increased the potential for disputes, particularly regarding international trade and human rights. The Asia-Pacific Dispute Resolution Program, which is run jointly by the Institute of Asian Research and the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, seeks to better understand, explain and predict when such disputes will arise, combining stateof- the-art approaches from law, political science, communications, sociology, international relations, economics and business. To manage-and ideally preventsuch disputes, the world is in urgent need of resolution approaches that meet the needs and expectations of the different cultures involved. The objective of the Program is to propose innovative interdisciplinary approaches to dispute resolution that international communities of scholars and policymakers can use to promote intercultural communication and reconciliation.

The Korean tariff rate for fishery products is a single tax rate of 10% for live fish and frozen seafood, and 20% for all others. Since FTAs have been concluded with several countries, the tariffs is not an appropriate means to protect domestic fishery producers. The differential tariff rate according to the scientific name (genus) of the fishery products, which was implemented 30 years ago to protect fishery products produced in the Korean coastal waters has lost its original purpose. It seems that future fishery trade policy should focus on IUU prevention, hygiene and safety of consumers rather than protecting fishery producers through customs tariffs. This paper suggest that a paradigm shift in the fishery producers protection policies such as direct financial support from the state, protection and development of fishery resources, and support for fostering the 6th industry rather than indirect protection through tariffs.

본 연구는 호주-중국 무역분쟁을 국제정치의 상호역학관계 관점에서 분 석하였다. 연구목적을 달성하기 위해 시스템사고 이론에 기반하여 인과지 도분석을 실시하였다. 연구를 통해 얻어진 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 경제 적 영역에서 시작된 무역분쟁은 다양한 영역으로 확산되면서 복잡한 국제 정치시스템으로 진화하는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 다양한 변수들이 작동하 는 국제관계 현실에서 절대적 가치만을 선호하는 중국의 보호된 가치(중화 사상, 하나의 중국, 중국식 인권주의)는 정책결과의 확증편향을 유발하면서 국제관계에서 다양한 변수들의 동태적 변화를 인식하지 못하게 하는 원인 으로 작용하는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 한국과 호주는 중국과의 외교관계에 서 상당히 유사한 조건을 가지고 있다는 점에서 호주-중국의 무역분쟁에서 호주가 사용한 전략은 한국의 정책결정에 교훈을 주고 있다는 점을 발견할 수 있었다.

By the time the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) entered into force, there had been numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements between the parties regarding its rules on dispute settlement. However, the WTO dispute settlement system currently remains the most requested. The present article provides a comparative analysis of the procedures of dispute settlement under the CPTPP, the WTO DSU, and some RTAs. Among the novelties of the CPTPP mechanism compared to the WTO DSU are that it extends its scope to measures not yet introduced, offers more transparency, including the use of electronic means of communication, simplifies access for third parties, and provides financial compensation as a temporary remedy. Although the authors conclude that many of the CPTPP provisions repeat those of the WTO DSU and other RTAs between the CPTPP partners, there may be a desire to test the CPTPP mechanism in practice due to crises of the WTO Appellate Body.

In China, all dispute resolution mechanisms have introduced online dispute resolution (ODR) system into their operations. To address this situation, this article suggests the principle of due process should include the limitations of Internet-based dispute resolution attempts and the impact of technologies should be taken seriously. The first part of this paper introduces the development of ODR in China. The second part identifies the major areas in which the due process should be secured. The third part focuses on new technologies and its relationship with ODR and among others, electronic evidence and artificial intelligence are discussed. This article concludes that we first need to consider the rapid development of ODR, while the settled procedural principles regarding due process and neutrality should still be the primary task of civil justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

The EU, China, and other WTO members recently released their concluded MPIA with its Annexes I and II as a temporary arrangement to deal with the appeals of panel rulings before the Appellate Body resumes its operation. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism is a complete unit with unique features and inherent logic. Although this arrangement maintains the two-tier process with arbitration to replace the appellate review, there is a fundamental difference between them, which is embodied not only in the dispute settlement process but also in the implementation of the rulings. The challenges that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism encounters are not limited to those procedural issues, but they are also connected with the substantive rules, with which the procedural issues should be jointly resolved. This is the correct way to deal with the current challenges and to reform the multilateral trade regime.

Bilateral agreements are not the optimal solution to address modern challenges regarding the resolution of investment disputes. The time has come for multilateral agreements to define a clear procedure for resolving investment disputes and the formation of arbitration for these purposes. On November 15, 2020, ASEAN members and five regional partners signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), arguably the largest free trade agreement in history. Although the RCEP agreement defines the basic principles of legal protection of investments, it does not contain a procedure for settling disputes directly between investors and parties to the agreement, i.e., Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), but rather postpones the issue for future negotiations. Nevertheless, a majority of countries understand the importance of investment protection and have significant outward FDI that will support stronger ISDS protections within a multilateral framework. Therefore, it is recommended that in the near future member countries will come to an agreement and adopt appropriate amendments to the RCEP regarding ISDS.

Hybrid dispute settlement mechanism is one of the characteristics of the UNCLOS. It is the combination of diplomatic measures and judicial proceedings. Among them, the ITLOS established in accordance with Annex VI, and two types of arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annexes VII and VIII are means for the disputes settlement firstly regulated in the UNCLOS. Especially, according to Article 287, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII has default jurisdiction in case one or both parties to a dispute are not covered by a declaration in force, or the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute. These means of dispute settlement have supplemented and enhanced the source of law for international dispute resolution more diversified. This paper clarifies some aspects of compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under the UNCLOS, evaluates the applicability of these procedures to the case of Vietnam in the disputes settlement on interpretation or application of the UNCLOS raising among countries in the South China Sea.

The primary purpose of this research is to propose the solution to the current crisis of the WTO dispute settlement system focusing on Article 25 of the WTO Agreement. The Dispute Settlement Understanding is one of the significant successes of the WTO. Recent years, however, have witnessed the difficulties and challenges facing the multilateral trading system along with rising anti-globalization and trade protectionism. The Appellate Body (AB) has been experiencing an unprecedented crisis of dysfunction mainly due to the US’s boycott of appointing the new members. The WTO Members, including China, have thus proposed various reforms in response to the crisis. However, they have not touched the core demands of the US. Because of the imminent crisis that the AB is about to stop operating, China should take urgent action with other WTO members, consider launching a majority voting program, design and use alternative appeal arbitration, and combine international rules with domestic deepening reforms.

The Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is facing serious crisis, which has impeded its normal function. To address this impasse, this article suggests a reform of the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism: the establishment of a new megamultilateral court to substitute for the Appellate Body. The first part of this paper addresses the reasons for considering this approach. The second part identifies how to establish a new mega-multilateral court within the WTO. The third part puts forward an idea of the function of the Dispute Settlement Body, which would serve as a forum for adjudicators and State Parties of the mega-multilateral court, in order to balance judicial independence, judicial accountability, and consistency. In discussing the reason for this reform, approaches to implementing it, and other examples of what form it might take, this article concludes that it is appropriate to establish a new mega-multilateral court within the WTO.

전통적인 소송절차만으로는 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁을 신속하고 효율적으로 해결하기 어렵다. 따라서 지역적 제한 없이 신속하고 포괄적인 결론을 도출할 수 있는 조정, 중재, 협상등의 대체적 분쟁해결제도(Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR)가 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁을 해결하는 데에 적절한 수단이 될 수 있다. 그런데 지식재산 분야의 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 그다지 활성화되어 있지 않다. 비활성화의 원인은 두 가지가 있다. 첫째, 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁의 국제적 특성, 최근의 COVID-19 사태에도 불구하고 현재 국내 지식재산 분야의 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 기본적으로 조정기일에의 출석을 요구하고 있다. 둘째, 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁은 여러 지식재산권을 대상으로 하는 경우가 많을 것임에도 현재 국내 지식재산 분야의 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 지식재산 권별로 분쟁해결을 담당하는 기관이 파편적으로 나뉘어져 있다. 따라서 전면적인 온라인 분쟁해결 절차를 도입하고, 파편적으로 나뉘어져 있는 대체적 분쟁해결절차를 통합할 필요가 있다. 지식재산 분야에 고유한 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 행정기관이 주도하고 있는데, 행정기관 소속 위원회들인 산업재산권분쟁조정위원회, 한국저작권위원회 등은 일부 온라인 조정신청만을 허용하고 있을 뿐 대부분 온라인 분쟁해결절차를 갖추고 있지 않다. 한편 세계지식재산기구 중재조정센터(WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center)는 온라인 분쟁해결절차로 eADR 서비스를 제공하고 있고, 미국의 Smartsettle 프로그램은 민간영역에서 온라인 분쟁해결절차 서비스를 제공하고 있으며, 캐나다의 Civil Resolution Tribunal은 경미한 사건에 대한 온라인 재판을 진행하고 있다. 위와 같은 외국의 사례를 참고하여, 통합적인 온라인 분쟁해결절차 플랫폼을 마련하여야 하는데, 시간과 비용 면에서 볼 때, 대한민국 법원 전자소송 프로그램을 활용하는 방법을 고려할 수 있다. 당사자들은 위 프로그램을 통해 조정신청을 하고, 행정 기관 소속 위원회가 그 절차에 따라 위 프로그램에서 조정절차를 진행하는 것이다. 한편 인공지능 기술의 도입 여부에 대해서는 특정 주제에 관한 빅 데이터를 조사, 수집, 분석하는 약 인공지능(Weak AI)은 활용될 필요가 있을 것인데, 이는 향후 기술발달 및 여건을 지켜보아야 할 것이다.

Bilateral relationships between Malaysia and Indonesia have always been cordial, augmented largely by their shared ethno-cultural, value and religious affinity. Cooperation and collaboration initiatives and arrangement between the two countries are well-established in various fields, ranging from security, economic and trade, health to education. However, these friendly bilateral relationships have been occasionally marred by diplomatic frictions and protests arising from their disputes over overlapping claims to maritime territory and boundary. Among the most notable, intractable on-going maritime territorial and boundary disputes between the two countries occur in the Malacca Straits. In resolving these particularly dispute, diplomatic negotiation has been the most common and if not, the only dispute resolution mechanism adopted by the two countries. What make the scope of this study departs from the existing literature is the focus placed on examining the process of diplomatic negotiations between Malaysia and Indonesia for amicable resolution of the disputes. Diplomatic negotiation is arguably the preferred method to delimit contested maritime boundaries as it has its own advantages compare to other alternative peaceful methods. This qualitative study uses content analysis approach to investigate and appraise the background and process of diplomatic negotiation between Malaysia and Indonesia to reach final settlement of their territorial area and boundary disputes in the Malacca Straits. In analyzing the case, the theoretical tools used are negotiation theory, and bilateral theory. The selected respondents for this study are comprised of experts and practitioners attached to government agencies such as Maritime Malaysia Enforcement Agency and Institute Diplomacy and Foreign Relation. Then, content analysis is applied to the coding process. The research finding reveal that the status of diplomatic negotiation between the government of Malaysia and Indonesia are still ongoing, with the immediate final resolution of the disputes remains to be seen. The contribution of this study lies in providing the strong facts and the real status about territorial dispute at Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia and also the process of diplomatic negotiation between Malaysia and Indonesia in settlement the territorial dispute at Strait of Malacca.

Since its accession to the WTO in 2001, China has been involved in 21 cases as complainant, 44 as respondent, and 179 as a third party. However, China-related cases have not overburdened the WTO dispute settlement system. Instead, China has assisted in the development of international trade law through the creative interpretations of different provisions achieved in the WTO dispute settlement proceedings. This article seeks to provide an overview of China’s participation in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and contribution to the rules over the past decade. In doing so, the article not only highlights the jurisprudential and doctrinal contributions of some of the critical disputes, but also examines the role of various interest groups and stakeholders in shaping China’s dispute settlement activity. Overall, the article provides an overview of China’s WTO dispute settlement activities and its role in assisting the development of international trade law.

본 연구는 미세먼지 문제 속에서의 환경권 보장에 대한 연구이다. 미세먼지가 사회문제로 이슈화되고 이에 대한 국민의 환경권에 대한 논의를 한 뒤, 미세먼지와 관련된 판례에서 나타난 국민이 건강하게 좋은 환경에서 살아갈 권리를 조명한다. 특히 국내 판결에서 건강권과 관련하여 배출가스 또는 미세먼지가 질병에 미치는 영향의 과학적 입증이 필요함을 강조한다. 연구를 통해 국민의 환경권을 보장하고 환경 불평등을 완화하며 환경 정의를 실현하기 위해 미세먼지 문제의 해결이 요원함을 알 수 있었다. 미세먼지 농도와 환경기준 미달성률, 시도별 미세먼지 현황을 검토하며 국가 및 지자체가 법제를 통해 심화되는 미세먼지 문제를 해결하려는 노력을 알 수 있었다. 미세먼지로부터 받는 영향력이 소외계층에게 더욱 컸고, 지역별로도 미세먼지의 피해가 다양하게 나타났고 이에 대응한 조례들도 제정되고 있다. 또한 본 연구에서 미세먼지와 관련한 판결들을 분석하였고 각종 미세먼지의 원인과 손해, 국가배상, 배출금지와 관련된 판례에서 과학기술 연구 결과를 인용하고 그 측정치 내지 분석결과나 논문을 판단의 잣대로 삼았다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 우리나라에선 미세먼지가 국민 질병에 미치는 피해와 관련한 소송이 있었지만 법원이 인정하지 않았다. 한국은 지금까지 개별적 인과관계를 인정하지 않았지만 대법원과 헌법재판소에 판례에 따르면 실제 전국에 걸쳐 국민들이 대기환경으로 피해를 보고 있는 경우 국가가 책임을 회피하기는 어려울 것이다. 이러한 과학적 인과관계 입증의 어려움이 컸던 기존 판례의 어려움을 통해 보았을 때 미세먼지 문제를 해결하기 위한 과학기술정책과 법제의 지원이 필요하다. 한국에 부족한 미세먼지 관련 연구개발을 중흥하기 위한 국가 주도의 법정책이 필요하며 국가기후환경위원회를 통해 과학적 사실과 국민인식의 괴리를 좁히는 노력도 필요하다. 또한 항만지역 등 미세먼지발생이 높은 섹터에 대한 정보체계관리와 과학기술을 통한 배출물질과 오염의 인과관계를 밝히는 노력이 필요하며 이를 위한 법제 지원도 중요한 요소로 판단된다.

스프링클러설비에서 누수 하자가 발생되면 설비의 작동을 멈추는 경향이 많고 이는 입주자의 안전에 많은 지장을 초래하게 되며, 누수피해로 재산상의 손실도 발생하게 되므로 스프링클러설비는 화재진압 성능뿐만 아니라 내구성도 높아야 할 것이다. 동관 부식은 스프링클러설비 배관에서 주로 나타나는 특이한 현상으로서 그 동안 제시된 여러 학설들과 법원의 판단 등을 종합하여 검토한 결과, 동관의 부식은 매우 복합적인 요인에 의해 발생되고 있고, 하자보수 방법의 결정요인의 핵심은 보완시공을 통한 부식억제의 가능성 여부를 판단하는 것인데 실증적용 사례 연구 등을 통한 결론을 도출 하였다. 또한 스프링클러설비의 설비의 내구성 강화에 대한 법규적 미비점에 대해서도 연구를 통한 개선방안을 제시하여 향후 하자발생을 줄이고자 하였다.

The era of globalization has created a proverbial ‘rush’ to utilize trade and investment in developing nations. Growing fear over the abuse of developed nations’ bargaining power in these areas led the WTO to adopt remedial measures ensuring the protection of developing nations during disputes. The WTO’s dispute settlement system is unequivocally the most comprehensive form of the resolution of disputes among its Member States. Despite the numerous privileges and safeguards offered to developing Members States, reluctance and a lack of understanding in using the WTO dispute resolution process remain within these nations. This paper explains the options available to these nations, in an attempt to attract to use the dispute resolution process, and offers key insight on future amendments that can facilitate developing Member’s participation in the future. It will further articulate the statutory safeguards and favors provided to developing countries in DSS.