투자협정중재에 의한 중재판정의 승인·집행에 대한 뉴욕협약 적용에 관한 고찰

A Study on the Application of the New York Convention in the Recognition and Enforcement of ISDS Arbitral Awards

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Conven tion applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an inve stor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a sur render of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from t he scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it shou ld be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISD S awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be consi dered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation’s sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.