부산대학교 도서관

In the foreseeable future, direct international arbitration between foreign investors and host countries will remain the dominant method of conclusively resolving investment disputes arising out of international treaties. But many critics and countries argue that the current international investment treaty arbitration regime does not take adequate measure of national sovereignty concerns. The case of BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina throws this theme into sharp relief. By the plain text of the BIT, Argentina required any U.K. investor to litigate in its courts before seeking arbitration. But arbitration was held in the United States before BG had litigated. The U.S. Supreme Court held on an issue of first impression regarding U.S. federal court authority to review investor-state disputes. The precise issue before the court is whether a federal court may review an arbitrators’ jurisdictional conclusion in a dispute settlement proceeding under the United Kingdom and Argentina concluded a BIT. The BIT includes arbitration procedures for claims brought by an investor against the other host state. Prior to initiating arbitration, Article 8(2)(a) of the BIT requires the aggrieved investor to first seek resolution before a competent tribunal in the host state for a period of at least 18 months. The BG Group, a British corporation, initiated arbitration in the United States under the BIT in 2003. One particularly interesting question before the court is the interpretation of Article 8(2)(a) itself. The Supreme Court of the United States determined it should not disturb the findings of the arbitrators. This case involved many issues on investment arbitration. Korean-Argentine BIT has Similar clause like Art. 8(2)(a) of UK-Argentine BIT. BG Group case show many issues what Korea should learn.