한국과 미국의 자유무역협정이 발효됨에 따라 우리나라의 법제도뿐만 아니라 공공정책에 중대한 변화가 예상되고 있어 그에 대한 대비가 필요하다. 한미 FTA에서 도입된 간접수용과 투자자-국가소송제도는 우리 보상법체계에서 채택되어 있지 않는 제도이기 때문에 우리나라의 사회적․법적․정치적 여건을 반영하여 도입․시행되고 있는 각종 정책과 제도들이 한미 FTA의 관련규정에 위반되어 효력을 상실하게 될 우려가 있다. 한미 FTA는 안전한 투자환경 조성을 위한 외국투자자 보호목적에 따라 국제법을 바탕으로 투자자의 권리보호를 위한 기본요건들을 규정하고 있지만 우리나라는 개인의 재산권보다는 공공의 필요 또는 복리가 더 중요시되고, 헌법에서 보장하고 있는 재산권보장과 보상에 대한 요구가 입법에 제대로 반영되어 있지 않다. 예컨대 미국의 규제적 수용과 국제법상 간접수용은 완전하고 신속한 보상을 요구하지만 우리나라의 손실보상제도는 해당 법규의 입법적 보완을 통해 보상을 허용하고 있어, 우리나라 보상체계 전반이 한미 FTA의 Chapter 11과 상충될 위험에 있다. 또한 투자자-국가소송제도는 우리나라의 소송절차에서 인정되지 않는 또 다른 소송방법을 의미하는 것이고 미국 투자자는 국내법 체계와 소송절차가 아닌 국제법과 FTA 조항에 따른 소송절차를 적용받게 되므로 우리 입법권과 행정권은 물론 사법권까지 침해할 수 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 우리나라의 수용과 보상에 관한 정책과 법제도들이 한미 FTA의 간접수용조항과 투자자-국가소송제도에 의해 미국법과 국제법에 따라 판단되도록 강요받게 될 가능성이 있으므로 그에 대한 시급한 대책마련이 필요하다. 이 연구는 한미 FTA상의 수용과 보상(Chapter 11의 Article 11.6)조항을 우리나라 헌법 및 관련 법률조항과 비교․검토하고 우리나라 법제도의 문제점을 지적하고 개선방안을 제시하고 있다.

This paper explores how the indirect expropriation provision in the Korea-U.S. FTA will affect the Korean legal system on the similar principle. To do this, it examines the development and the meaning of indirect expropriation in international law and regulatory taking in the U.S.; and compares with the Korean legal principle under the Constitution. The Republic of Korea and the United States signed Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on June 30th, 2007 and it has entered into effect between two countries. The FTA will significantly reduce trade barriers and thereby expand the flow of trade and investment between both countries. However, there has been great controversy in Korea about the inclusion of “indirect expropriation” in Chapter 11 of the FTA, by which a foreign investor may bring suit against a host government. The Korean Constitution clearly mandates that just compensation be provided when a “restriction”, “condemnation” or “public use” occurs. However, the Korean legislature and Korean courts did not consider seriously for the constitutional requirement, which compels compensation for not only expropriation but also severe interference equivalent to expropriation because Korea was pursuing rapid economic development under a strong central government. While the U.S. has developed the concept of a “regulatory taking” or “indirect expropriation” in order to strike a balance between necessary land use regulations and private property rights. So the impact of the FTA's indirect expropriation provision would seriously conflict with the Korean legal systems. Although KORUS-FTA might give Korean some negative impacts, a positive aspect of this agreement is that KORUS-FTA will accelerate the movement toward improving the Korean to produce a more consistent and systematic structure. Chapter 11 KORUS-FTA presents the risk of encroaching upon national sovereignty, but Korea may utilize the FTA as a powerful tool to improve its system toward some advanced and democratic structure because there is no doubt that making efforts to correct the long twist in Korean legal system for expropriation and compensation.

This paper explores how the indirect expropriation provision in the Korea-U.S. FTA will affect the Korean legal system on the similar principle. To do this, it examines the development and the meaning of indirect expropriation in international law and regulatory taking in the U.S.; and compares with the Korean legal principle under the Constitution. The Republic of Korea and the United States signed Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on June 30th, 2007 and it has entered into effect between two countries. The FTA will significantly reduce trade barriers and thereby expand the flow of trade and investment between both countries. However, there has been great controversy in Korea about the inclusion of “indirect expropriation” in Chapter 11 of the FTA, by which a foreign investor may bring suit against a host government. The Korean Constitution clearly mandates that just compensation be provided when a “restriction”, “condemnation” or “public use” occurs. However, the Korean legislature and Korean courts did not consider seriously for the constitutional requirement, which compels compensation for not only expropriation but also severe interference equivalent to expropriation because Korea was pursuing rapid economic development under a strong central government. While the U.S. has developed the concept of a “regulatory taking” or “indirect expropriation” in order to strike a balance between necessary land use regulations and private property rights. So the impact of the FTA's indirect expropriation provision would seriously conflict with the Korean legal systems. Although KORUS-FTA might give Korean some negative impacts, a positive aspect of this agreement is that KORUS-FTA will accelerate the movement toward improving the Korean to produce a more consistent and systematic structure. Chapter 11 KORUS-FTA presents the risk of encroaching upon national sovereignty, but Korea may utilize the FTA as a powerful tool to improve its system toward some advanced and democratic structure because there is no doubt that making efforts to correct the long twist in Korean legal system for expropriation and compensation.

Indirect Expropriation, regulatory taking, ROK-U.S. FTA, Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Expropriation and Compensation