투자분쟁 역학관계의 재조정－ISDS 절차 반소 제도 도입 움직임과 법적 함의－ = Recalibrating the Power Dynamics of International Investment Disputes－Counterclaims in the ISDS Reform Agenda and Systemic Implications－

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) proceeding has become one of the important topics of the international community at the moment. Discussions for the reform are being undertaken by various international organizations including UNCITRAL, OECD and ICSID. Many states and other stake-holders are actively participating in the discussions. The topics being discussed under the rubric span over a wide range of areas.
One of the items included in the current discussions of the ISDS reform concerns counterclaims. Counterclaims mean the claims a host state government may hold vis-à-vis a foreign investor claimant. At the moment, most of international investment agreements (IIAs) stipulating ISDS proceedings do not envisage the possibility of counterclaims, and they focus on the claims raised by foreign investors only. Some recent IIAs have begun to refer to counterclaims and some recent arbitral tribunals allow counterclaims. Nonetheless, the invocation of counterclaims largely remains unpredictable and ambiguous. The current discussions on counterclaims aim to address this issue.
On balance, there seems to be strong consensus among states to permit counterclaims as a means to bring back the equilibrium of the power dynamics between a host state and a foreign investor. More than anything else, counterclaims may help settle outstanding disputes between the host state and the foreign investor in a single-handed manner. It may then enhance efficiency of the ISDS proceedings. Also, by restricting frivolous ISDS claims, and ensuring legitimate public policy space, counterclaims may help restore the desired equilibrium between the host state and the foreign investor. The pursuit of equilibrium remains the core objective of the current ISDS reform discussion.
At the same time, however, counterclaims may also bring about negative consequences.
For instance, they may further prolong the already lengthy ISDS proceedings and thus drive up litigation costs as well. A host state may purport to abuse the counterclaim proceeding to block an otherwise legitimate ISDS claim by a foreign investor. The role of a possible advisory center may also have to re-assessed to determine whether it should or could assist a host state in terms of counterclaims.
Thus, diverse aspects of counterclaims should be taken into consideration in the current discussions. This topic involves a variety of different provisions of IIAs and different aspects of ISDS proceedings. Most importantly, model provisions of counterclaims need to be drafted at this juncture, so that future discussions can be guided to ensure more specific debates on counterclaims such as the meaning, conditions and scope of counterclaims, as opposed to a mere reference to the need for counterclaims in abstract terms. All in all, counterclaims should be designed to ensure the power equilibrium between a host state and a foreign investor. Only the attainment of such equilibrium can contribute to strengthening the legitimacy of ISDS proceedings.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

현재 ISDS 절차 개선 논의가 국제사회에서 활발하게 논의되고 있다. 여러 이슈가 이 맥락에서 논의, 검토되고 있으며 그 중 하나는 반소 제도 도입 여부이다. 투자 유치국이 외국인 투자자의 제소를 방어만 할 수 있는 ISDS 제도를 투자 유치국이 외국인 투자자에 대해갖고 있는 여러 법적 주장을 제기할 수 있는 기회로 삼자는 것이 반소 제도 논의의 핵심이다. 반소 제도 도입은 투자유치국 정부가 ISDS 절차를 공세적으로 활용할 수 있는 길을 열어 준다는 측면에서 투자협정 및 투자분쟁해결절차 전반에 걸쳐 힘의 균형에 변화를 초래할 수 있는 사안이다. 이에 따라 여러 국가들이 관심을 갖고 지켜보며 다양한 의견을 제시하고 있다. 반소 제도는 적절히 도입된다면 ISDS 절차의 남용을 억제할 수 있고 관련된 여러 법적 쟁점을 동시에 해결할 수 있어 효율적인 분쟁해결이 가능하다는 장점이 있다. 동시에 반소 제도는 외국인 투자자의 정당한 ISDS 절차 개시를 억제하는 압박 수단으로 활용될가능성이 있다는 점, 분쟁해결에 소요되는 시간과 비용이 증가한다는 점 등 단점도 적지 않다. 앞으로 이러한 점을 종합적으로 고려한 반소 제도 도입이 필요하다. 현재 가장 중요한부분은 반소 제도 도입에 원칙적으로 합의하더라도 그 의미와 범위를 어떻게 명확히 규정할 것인지 여부이다. 이 부분이 앞으로 논의 과정에서 확정되어야 할 주요 과제이다. 일단반소 제도와 관련된 투자협정의 여러 조항에 대한 모델 조항을 채택하고 이를 토대로 앞으로의 논의를 이끌어 가는 것이 보다 현실적인 대안을 도출할 수 있다는 측면에서 적절할것이다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정흥준, "한국 대기업의 사회적 책임에 관한 연구" 한국노동연구원 2018
• 2 "한-미 FTA (2012년 3월 15일 발효, 2019년 1월 1일 개정의정서 발효)"
• 3 "한-EU FTA (2011년 7월 1일 부분 발효, 2015년 12월 13일 발효)"
• 4 "http://www.ncp.or.kr/servlet/kncp/kor/1000"
• 5 "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties"
• 6 "Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26)"
• 7 Luca, Anna De, "UNCITRAL Working Group III: Counterclaims in ISDS – Challenges and Prospects in Light of the UNCITRAL Reform Process"
• 8 Bjorklund, Andrea K., "The Role of Counterclaims in Rebalancing Investment Law" 17 (17): 2013
• 9 Lahlou, Yasmine, "The Rise of Environmental Counterclaims in Mining Arbitration" 2021
• 10 Farmer, Kelsey Brooke, "The Best Defense is a Good Offense – State Counterclaim in Investment Treaty Arbitration" University of Wellington 2016
• 11 "Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1)"
• 12 이재성, "Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss in Investor-State Disputes and Reform Options" 법무부 (2) : 55-91, 2021
• 13 "Saluka Investments B.V. v. Czech Republic, (PCA Case No. 2001-04)"
• 14 "Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/15)"
• 15 "Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNGA, Fiftieth session, (A/72/17) (2017)"
• 16 "Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), Note by the Secretariat, UNCITRAL WG III, (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149) (2018)"
• 17 "Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), Multiple proceedings and counterclaims, Note by the Secretariat, UNCITRAL WG III, (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.193) (2020)"
• 18 "Possible future work in the field of dispute settlement: Reforms of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), Note by the Secretariat, UNCITRAL, (A/CN.9/917) (2017)"
• 19 "Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. The Republic of Ecuador, (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6)"
• 20 "Oxus Gold plc v. Republic of Uzbekistan, Awards"
• 21 대한상사중재원 (한국 NCP), "OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인"
• 22 Robert, Anthea, "Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration" 2018
• 23 "Hesham T. M. Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia, Awards"
• 24 "Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24)"
• 25 "Free Trade Agreement between Central America, the Dominican Republic and the United States of America (CAFTA-DR)"
• 26 Shao, Xuan, "Environmental and Human Rights Counterclaims in International Investment Arbitration: at the Crossroads of Domestic and International Law" 24 (24): 2021
• 27 "Desert Line Projects LLC v. The Republic of Yemen, (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17)"
• 28 "David Aven et al. v. The Republic of Costa Rica, (ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/3)"
• 29 Kalicki, Jean., "Counterclaims by States in Investment Arbitration"
• 30 "Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID)"
• 31 "Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)"
• 32 "Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COSMA)"
• 33 "Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company (USA) v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 34877"
• 34 "Burlington v. Ecuador, (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5)"
• 35 "Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5)"
• 36 "Antoine Goetz & Others and S.A. Affinage des Metaux v. Republic of Burundi, (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/2)"
• 37 "Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic"
• 38 "Agreement for the Reciprocal Promotions and Protection of Investments Between the Argentine Republic and The United Arab Emirates"
• 39 "Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA)"
• 40 "Agreement Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Singapore for the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments"
• 41 "Agreement Between the Slovak Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investment"