North Korea

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: North Korea

#451

Post by neeneko » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:45 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:37 pm
That sends a very strong message, especially since that could be a very expensive decision on China's part.

http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/D ... tyFile/750
Well, it sends a very dramatic message at least. It remains to be seen what the implementation on the ground will be. They could easily just shift the trade over to a more grey market and claim to have 'stopped' trade. It isn't like the US is going to be auditing the books of various companies within China.



User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: North Korea

#452

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:49 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:37 pm
That sends a very strong message, especially since that could be a very expensive decision on China's part.

http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/D ... tyFile/750
IANAL and IMDANAFPIL (I most definitely am not a fancy-pants international lawyer).

I read this and the language seems a bit vague compared to a lot of US-based contracts I've read. Could the fact that this is being done under UN sanctions be an "out" for the Chinese to avoid paying for closing these businesses down? While international sanctions are not specified in Article 5 of the agreement, it might be possible to construe this as a some sort of "force majeure" like acts of war, acts of God, etc.?

And given the amount of eminent domain seizures that the Chinese government does to build highways, skyscrapers, etc., might they be able to use Article 5's guarantee that anything expropriated will be done consistent with internal laws as a way to stiff the North Koreans, since they don't exactly pay market rate for what they expropriate from their own citizens?



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9364
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea

#453

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:52 pm

neeneko wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:45 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:37 pm
That sends a very strong message, especially since that could be a very expensive decision on China's part.

http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/D ... tyFile/750
Well, it sends a very dramatic message at least. It remains to be seen what the implementation on the ground will be. They could easily just shift the trade over to a more grey market and claim to have 'stopped' trade. It isn't like the US is going to be auditing the books of various companies within China.
In theory, all affected NK investors can seek compensation for their losses from the Chinese government. The NK-China Bilateral Investment Treaty is not terribly sophisticated, and by my read there is nothing in there that would explicitly permit China to escape the requirement to provide compensation for what is almost certainly an expropriation under applicable international law.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9364
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea

#454

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:11 pm

JohnPCapitalist wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:49 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:37 pm
That sends a very strong message, especially since that could be a very expensive decision on China's part.

http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/D ... tyFile/750
IANAL and IMDANAFPIL (I most definitely am not a fancy-pants international lawyer).

I read this and the language seems a bit vague compared to a lot of US-based contracts I've read. Could the fact that this is being done under UN sanctions be an "out" for the Chinese to avoid paying for closing these businesses down? While international sanctions are not specified in Article 5 of the agreement, it might be possible to construe this as a some sort of "force majeure" like acts of war, acts of God, etc.?

And given the amount of eminent domain seizures that the Chinese government does to build highways, skyscrapers, etc., might they be able to use Article 5's guarantee that anything expropriated will be done consistent with internal laws as a way to stiff the North Koreans, since they don't exactly pay market rate for what they expropriate from their own citizens?
It's what I'd consider to be a bog-standard Bilateral Investment Treaty - there are literally hundreds that are very similar to it currently in effect around the world. It's very expansive both in terms of covered investments and the scope of treatment extended (the promise to provide both national treatment and most favored nation treatment is pretty broad).

In the event that a NK investor initiates arbitration under Article 9 of the Treaty, I'd expect that China would probably try to invoke Article 5 as a defense. But those provisions are generally viewed as relating more to physical damage caused by actual conflict. China would have a better defense if the treaty contained a carve out for actions taken to preserve essential security interests, but I don't see one of those clauses in this treaty.

For the purposes of any dispute likely to come up from China's actions, the most relevant provision is probably Article 4.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: North Korea

#455

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:13 pm

China could do an Andrew Jackson on North Korea if North Korea gets a judgment for a violation of its trade treaties:

"So you have a judgment; try to collect it!"



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9364
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea

#456

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:56 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:13 pm
China could do an Andrew Jackson on North Korea if North Korea gets a judgment for a violation of its trade treaties:

"So you have a judgment; try to collect it!"
One of the issues with bilateral investment treaties is that enforcement can be easier than you might expect (although not necessarily easy). Any judgment would be in the form of an arbitral award. There's an international agreement (the New York Convention) that governs the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, so a prevailing NK investor could theoretically collect by locating Chinese government assets abroad, filing the award with a local court, and initiating seizure and collection proceedings there.

As a practical matter, and after another read of the treaty, I don't actually expect there to be that many cases arising from China's action - for starters, treaty arbitration is really expensive, so there's a good chance that the NK investors wouldn't have the resources to pursue claims - but it's still a real issue. And another example of the potential unanticipated side effects of providing a very liberal private cause of action in a trade treaty.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20655
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: North Korea

#457

Post by TollandRCR » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:06 pm

I am surprised that anything North Korean would have private investors, even in China. I don’t know where their money would come from.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

Somerset
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: North Korea

#458

Post by Somerset » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:20 pm

This agreement is dated 22 March 2005, is effective for 10 years, and can be terminated with one year's notice after the effective period. I wonder if notice of termination would be a next step.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9364
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea

#459

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:52 pm

Somerset wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:20 pm
This agreement is dated 22 March 2005, is effective for 10 years, and can be terminated with one year's notice after the effective period. I wonder if notice of termination would be a next step.
Wouldn't make much difference - existing investments remain protected for 10 years after the treaty is terminated. (Article 14.4.) That's known as a "sunset clause" or "survival clause," and it's also a very common feature of such treaties. (For more information, you can see some of the material in the forthcoming book that I'm one of 4 editors on - assuming we get the damn thing done by our 20 Oct deadline.)


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Somerset
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: North Korea

#460

Post by Somerset » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:26 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:52 pm
Somerset wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:20 pm
This agreement is dated 22 March 2005, is effective for 10 years, and can be terminated with one year's notice after the effective period. I wonder if notice of termination would be a next step.
Wouldn't make much difference - existing investments remain protected for 10 years after the treaty is terminated. (Article 14.4.) That's known as a "sunset clause" or "survival clause," and it's also a very common feature of such treaties. (For more information, you can see some of the material in the forthcoming book that I'm one of 4 editors on - assuming we get the damn thing done by our 20 Oct deadline.)
I see.

Please let me know when the book is available :)



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9364
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea

#461

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Somerset wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:26 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:52 pm
Somerset wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:20 pm
This agreement is dated 22 March 2005, is effective for 10 years, and can be terminated with one year's notice after the effective period. I wonder if notice of termination would be a next step.
Wouldn't make much difference - existing investments remain protected for 10 years after the treaty is terminated. (Article 14.4.) That's known as a "sunset clause" or "survival clause," and it's also a very common feature of such treaties. (For more information, you can see some of the material in the forthcoming book that I'm one of 4 editors on - assuming we get the damn thing done by our 20 Oct deadline.)
I see.

Please let me know when the book is available :)
I will, but it's highly unlikely to be of interest to anyone here (or, for that matter, to many people anywhere in the world). It's a really technical look at bilateral investment treaties for one region, and it's so boring that I'm getting bored with it while writing it. :-D


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: North Korea

#462

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:40 am

Well that's encouraging. A soporific.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27306
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: North Korea

#463

Post by Addie » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:06 am

WaPo
Trump signed presidential directive ordering actions to pressure North Korea

Early in his administration, President Trump signed a directive outlining a strategy of pressure against North Korea that involved actions across a broad spectrum of government agencies and led to the use of military cyber-capabilities, according to U.S. officials.

As part of the campaign, U.S. Cyber Command targeted hackers in North Korea’s military spy agency, the Reconnaissance General Bureau, by barraging their computer servers with traffic that choked off Internet access.

Trump’s directive, a senior administration official said, also included instructions to diplomats and officials to bring up North Korea in virtually every conversation with foreign interlocutors and urge them to sever all ties with Pyongyang. Those conversations have had significant success, particularly in recent weeks as North Korea has tested another nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles, officials said.

So pervasive is the diplomatic campaign that some governments have found themselves scrambling to find any ties with North Korea. When Vice President Pence called on one country to break relations during a recent overseas visit, officials there reminded him that they never had relations with Pyongyang. Pence then told them, to their own surprise, that they had $2 million in trade with North Korea. Foreign officials, who asked that their country not be identified, described the exchange.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27306
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: North Korea

#464

Post by Addie » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:37 am

Reuters
Trump tells top U.S. diplomat: Don't waste time talking to North Korea

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he told the top U.S. diplomat not to waste his time trying to negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” Trump wrote on Twitter, using his sarcastic nickname for Kim.

Trump’s comment came the day after Tillerson disclosed that the United States was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs but that Pyongyang had shown no interest in dialogue.

“Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!” Trump said.

Tillerson said during a trip to China on Saturday that the United States was probing North Korea to see whether it is interested in dialogue and that it had multiple direct channels of communication with Pyongyang.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: North Korea

#465

Post by neeneko » Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:49 pm

Trump signed presidential directive ordering actions to pressure North Korea
Trump tells top U.S. diplomat: Don't waste time talking to North Korea
This kinda makes it seem like Trump is the one that destabilized the situation.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5059
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: North Korea

#466

Post by Slim Cognito » Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:59 pm

If I could draw better, I'd create something with little boy Trump poking a stick at a hornet's nest named N. Korea, with Kelly in the background clutching his chest.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18197
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: North Korea

#467

Post by Volkonski » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:07 pm

neeneko wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:49 pm
Trump signed presidential directive ordering actions to pressure North Korea
Trump tells top U.S. diplomat: Don't waste time talking to North Korea
This kinda makes it seem like Trump is the one that destabilized the situation.
Trump's recklessness is very worrying. :?


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: North Korea

#468

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:07 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:07 pm
neeneko wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:49 pm
Trump signed presidential directive ordering actions to pressure North Korea
Trump tells top U.S. diplomat: Don't waste time talking to North Korea
This kinda makes it seem like Trump is the one that destabilized the situation.
Trump's recklessness is very worrying. :?
China is worried, too. Russia? Delighted. Trump is better than they had hoped.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17248
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: North Korea

#469

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:13 pm

Addie wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:06 am
WaPo
Trump signed presidential directive ordering actions to pressure North Korea
:snippity:
So pervasive is the diplomatic campaign that some governments have found themselves scrambling to find any ties with North Korea. When Vice President Pence called on one country to break relations during a recent overseas visit, officials there reminded him that they never had relations with Pyongyang. Pence then told them, to their own surprise, that they had $2 million in trade with North Korea. Foreign officials, who asked that their country not be identified, described the exchange.
OMFSM - diplomatic contacts and commercial contacts are two different critters. Even with all UN sanctions in place there is a possibility for minor commercial activities. Depends who registers those activities. This may include some spurious tourists, some humanitarian contacts, well $2mio is petty cash. :brickwallsmall:



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: North Korea

#470

Post by Kendra » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:19 pm



:brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall:



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18197
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: North Korea

#471

Post by Volkonski » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Clinton, Bush and Obama managed to avoid starting a war on the Korean peninsula.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14634
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: North Korea

#472

Post by ZekeB » Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:36 pm

So Rocket Man is 50 years old now?


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

Re: North Korea

#473

Post by Hektor » Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:58 pm

Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won't fail.
Yeah, they may have failed at getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear aspirations (and the whole Axis of Evil and invasion of Iraq by Dubya might just have convinced the DPRK that having nuclear weapons would help guarantee the regime). But there are more ways than one to fail. And one can accomplish a goal (like ending the North Korean nuclear threat) at a cost that was far too high. I know the President doesn't read much, but his chief of staff should try and edumakate about the whole concept of a Pyrrhic victory.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: North Korea

#474

Post by Kendra » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:28 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 6f7a8d14e9

Last August, a secret message was passed from Washington to Cairo warning about a mysterious vessel steaming toward the Suez Canal. The bulk freighter named Jie Shun was flying Cambodian colors but had sailed from North Korea, the warning said, with a North Korean crew and an unknown cargo shrouded by heavy tarps.
Armed with this tip, customs agents were waiting when the ship entered Egyptian waters. They swarmed the vessel and discovered, concealed under bins of iron ore, a cache of more than 30,000 rocket-propelled grenades. It was, as a United Nations report later concluded, the “largest seizure of ammunition in the history of sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

But who were the rockets for? The Jie Shun’s final secret would take months to resolve and would yield perhaps the biggest surprise of all: The buyers were the Egyptians themselves.

A U.N. investigation uncovered a complex arrangement in which Egyptian business executives ordered millions of dollars worth of North Korean rockets for the country’s military while also taking pains to keep the transaction hidden, according to U.S. officials and Western diplomats familiar with the findings. The incident, many details of which were never publicly revealed, prompted the latest in a series of intense, if private, U.S. complaints over Egyptian efforts to obtain banned military hardware from Pyongyang, the officials said.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18197
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: North Korea

#475

Post by Volkonski » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:53 pm



Pray tell, what would that one thing be? :?


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

Post Reply

Return to “Foreign Policy”