Search

The United States’ Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) introduces new eligibility requirements for existing USD 7,500 tax-credit provided to electric vehicles. The new requirements condition the credit upon North American final assembly and North American-sourced materials and components. As tensions flare between the US and China, these new local content requirements reflect the US’s effort to establish a supply chain for electric vehicles that circumvents China. The blow, however, is felt elsewhere, namely by South Korean auto makers whose electric vehicle models are no longer eligible for the significant tax-credit necessary to compete in the American market. As South Korea considers submitting a complaint to relevant international bodies, this paper dissects the IRA’s relevant provisions and analyzes the applicability of international trade law rules of the WTO and the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement to the new local content requirements of the IRA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tensions are high between Korea and Japan as a result of Japan's export restrictions on three essential semiconductor materials exported to Korea and the removal of South Korea from their White List of countries. The Abe Administration announced that these measures were necessary to "ensure non-proliferation of weapons-related materials." However, it is widely suspected that these measures were adopted as a retaliation against the Korean Supreme Court's decision recognizing compensation for the forced labor victims during the Japanese occupation period. The Korean government filed a complaint concerning these measures at the WTO DSB for resolution under international law. In this research, the authors will critically analyze Japan's export restrictions under international law to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. This paper will tackle the relevant issues under the WTO/GATT regulations and the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement to address the issue of who violated international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US-Korea FTA, in its initial days of negotiation saw severe protests by public and political turmoil in Seoul. After crossing several procedural hoops and political hurdles in parliaments of both countries it became effective in 2012, though it was signed in 2007. At that time, it was considered by the US a 'model agreement' which could open opportunities for the US exporters in the Korean market. However, only couple of years later, the Trump administration called this FTA a 'horrible' deal that has 'destroyed' America. Thus, the Trump administration wanted to scrap the FTA. After considering the political implications of such action, the US government decided to re-negotiate the FTA so that the US concerns are addressed. In a short period of negotiation, both sides agreed to the revised terms of the FTA which has become effective from January 1, 2019. This paper analyses outcomes of the revised US-Korea FTA, 2018 from the US perspective and evaluate if all concerns of the US are met. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HIV/AIDS is an important global issue in human rights and health. The United Nations Refugee Convention clearly addresses to guarantee healthcare rights to refugees at the same level as those provided to citizens. In Korea, the number of refugee applicants has surged since the enactment of the Refugee Act in 2012. Regarding human dignity and human rights, however, there are serious concerns that Korea's healthcare laws and policies would not fully protect the right of foreigners who are suffering from financial hardship. This paper proposes the ways to improve healthcare equity by comparing the UNAIDS Guidelines to Korean policies on HIV-positive refugee applicants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, the International Maritime Organization has adopted technical and operational measures, and discussed the possibility of adopting market-based measures. China, Japan and South Korea are major shipbuilding nations in the world, and have differing responses towards the IMO's regulatory initiatives. This paper conducts a comparative assessment of these three countries' positions on regulatory principles of the greenhouse gas issue, and concludes that their differentiated perspectives on this matter reflect their different regulatory interests. It is significant to take their differentiated interests into account in the developing regulatory regime to avoid disproportionate burdens being placed on certain countries, in particular developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]