회사국적과 관련된 미통상법의 적용 사례 연구

Many products are often designed, assembled, processed, or manufactured composites of parts in different national jurisdictions because of the increasing globalization of production and the increasing mobility of goods, services and capital across national borders. So we cannot easily make a clear distinction between what constitutes `national` corporations versus `foreign` corporations. Considering the above facts, this paper reassesses the concept of nationality on a corporation mainly based on the so-called ‘domestic participation` test. It is provided for the balance between the national perspective and the international one. According to this test, if corporate activities within a state qualify as substantial, socioeconomic participation in the state`s economy, the corporation qualifies as a domestic firm, entitled to the benefits and protection of the applicable trade laws. Looking at the internationalization and globalization of production by corporate entities, we also have a problem to find out which party has standing to invoke the U.S. antidumpng laws or the Section 201 like the Smith Corona/Brother Industries case. Because the nature of the target group to be protected by the laws is less clear. So, the availability of the remedies of these laws seems to act as a kind of substitute to meet an underlying political pressure against foreign competition. The assumption underlying these trade laws and policies might be that the competitiveness of the American national economy is essentially tied to the competitiveness of its national products. However, any administering agencies, like Commerce Department of the U.S., should bear a burden, having to respond simultaneously in the international business scene, evolution in the globalized trading regime, and domestic political pressure. Through this kind of process leading to the balance of internationalism and nationalism, the world trading system to which the majority of countries belong would be best served.