{
  "id": "R41779",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41779",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 415537,
      "date": "2012-03-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T21:50:03.151002",
      "title": "Dispute Settlement in the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)",
      "summary": "The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which was approved by Congress in P.L. 112-41 and entered into force on March 15, 2012, follows current U.S. FTA practice in containing two types of formal dispute settlement: (1) State-State, applicable to disputes between the KORUS FTA Parties, and (2) investor-State, applicable to claims against one Party by an investor of the other Party for breach of an agreement investment obligation. An unsuccessful defendant in a State-State dispute would generally be expected to remove the complained-of measure; remedies for non-compliance include compensation and the suspension of KORUS FTA obligations (e.g., the imposition of a tariff surcharge on the defending Party\u2019s products) and, as an alternative, payment of a fine to the prevailing Party in the dispute or, in some cases, into a fund that may be used to assist the defending Party in complying with its obligations in the case. The agreement also contains special procedures for State-State disputes relating to motor vehicles that grant the prevailing Party an automatic right to increase tariffs on motor vehicles of the defending Party to most-favored-nation (MFN) rates. If the United States or South Korea were found to have violated an investment obligation in an investor-State dispute, the tribunal would be authorized only to make a monetary award to the investor and thus could not direct the State defendant to withdraw the challenged measure. If the State defendant did not comply with the award, the investor might seek to enforce it under one of the international arbitral conventions to which the United States and South Korea are party.\nState-State dispute settlement in the KORUS FTA differs from that in most earlier U.S. FTAs in that it applies to all obligations in the agreement\u2019s labor and environmental chapters instead of only domestic labor or environmental law enforcement obligations. Also, in the event a Party is found to be in breach of one of these obligations and has not complied, the prevailing Party may impose trade sanctions instead of, as under earlier agreements, being limited to requesting that the non-complying Party pay a fine, with the proceeds to be expended for labor or environmental initiatives in that Party\u2019s territory. The changes stem from a bipartisan understanding on trade policy between congressional leaders and the George W. Bush Administration finalized on May 10, 2007, setting out provisions that were to be added to completed or substantially completed FTAs pending at the time. Among other aims, the understanding sought to expand and further integrate labor and environmental obligations into the U.S. FTA structure. The same approach to labor and environmental disputes is found in FTAs with Colombia and Panama, each approved by Congress in October 2011, and the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, which entered into force in 2009.\nResort to panels under FTA State-State dispute settlement has been uncommon, and thus there has been relatively little experience with the operation of this mechanism over a range of agreements and issues. FTA investor-State claims have been filed under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. As is the case with its NAFTA partners, particularly Canada, the United States imports capital from South Korea to a greater degree than it does from parties to other U.S. investment agreements, and South Korean investment in the United States may indeed grow over time. While this situation may create a greater potential for investor-State disputes than exists under most other U.S. investment agreements, the extent to which disputes involving South Korean investors will in fact arise would seemingly depend upon a variety of factors and interests unique to an investor\u2019s individual situation and thus for now remains only a matter for conjecture. To date, the United States has prevailed in all investor-State cases brought against it.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41779",
          "sha1": "ba4292aaec2791f45af9e1166926371ba1aed491",
          "filename": "files/20120321_R41779_ba4292aaec2791f45af9e1166926371ba1aed491.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41779",
          "sha1": "0c85250b0ee956ca921eb4694c2ebc5e9e233248",
          "filename": "files/20120321_R41779_0c85250b0ee956ca921eb4694c2ebc5e9e233248.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808867/",
      "id": "R41779_2011Oct24",
      "date": "2011-10-24",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Dispute Settlement in the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20111024_R41779_5787c9349b8c3f940619e0f781fc9027b5b32f3a.pdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40137/",
      "id": "R41779_2011April20",
      "date": "2011-04-20",
      "retrieved": "2011-08-27T10:13:38",
      "title": "Dispute Settlement in the Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)",
      "summary": "The proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)1 follows current U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) practice in containing two types of dispute settlement: (1) State-State, applicable to disputes between the Parties to the KORUS FTA, and (2) investor-State, applicable to claims by an investor of one Party against the other Party for breach of a KORUS FTA investment obligation.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20110420_R41779_1f1dd8464856c92fd22ad6ce6b76f9612978b4c8.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20110420_R41779_1f1dd8464856c92fd22ad6ce6b76f9612978b4c8.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Free trade",
          "name": "Free trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign trade policy",
          "name": "Foreign trade policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign trade regulation",
          "name": "Foreign trade regulation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign trade regulation-U.S.-South Korea",
          "name": "Foreign trade regulation-U.S.-South Korea"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40138/",
      "id": "R41779_2011May11",
      "date": "2001-05-11",
      "retrieved": "2011-08-27T10:13:38",
      "title": "Dispute Settlement in the Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)",
      "summary": "The proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) follows current U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) practice in containing two types of formal dispute settlement: (1) State- State, applicable to disputes between the KORUS FTA Parties, and (2) investor-State, applicable to claims by an investor of one KORUS FTA Party against the other Party for breach of an agreement investment obligation.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20010511_R41779_8880d3d530dd12ef1b715dd8d05153767973afe7.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010511_R41779_8880d3d530dd12ef1b715dd8d05153767973afe7.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign relations",
          "name": "Foreign relations"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign policy",
          "name": "Foreign policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign relations-U.S.- South Korea",
          "name": "Foreign relations-U.S.- South Korea"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreing relations- South Korea-U.S.",
          "name": "Foreing relations- South Korea-U.S."
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Free trade",
          "name": "Free trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign trade policy",
          "name": "Foreign trade policy"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}