任何區域貿易協定（Regional Trade Arrangement,簡稱RTA）都要面臨的一項挑戰就是必須遵守國際法律架構的國際義務。此一架構制約與型塑了各經濟體間的任何經濟合作。評論家的分析通常多聚焦於經濟合作的政經影響，而往往忽略了法律層次的探討。然而，由談判到RTA的簽署都是在國際法律的架構下進行的，且此一法律架構不僅管理簽約各造的關係，並且各造皆受到此一架構在結構上的限制。而最著稱的國際法律架構堪稱世界貿易組織（WTO）。 南韓是WTO的會員國，該國的任何RTA的談判當然必須要遵守WTO有關簽訂優惠貿易協定的規則。在WTO下有不少有關管理國際貿易的協定，其中尤以關稅暨貿易總協定(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,簡稱GATT) 與服務貿易總協定(General Agreement on Trade in Services,簡稱GATS) 。 本文主旨在檢視國際法律架構在管理南韓RTA的簽訂中所扮演的角色。首先將簡述國際法在治理區域經濟合作的角色。其次思考WTO硬法（hard law）架構，第三部分則是有關亞太經濟合作組織（APEC）軟法（soft law）架構。

Commentators have often focussed their analysis of regional integration on the economic and political consequences of economic cooperation, largely ignoring the legal dimension of the inquiry. However, negotiations leading to a Regional Trade Arrangement (RTA) will take place within the international legal framework which governs the relationships among the parties, and that framework will impose a certain structure and constraints on the parties.? A challenge to any Regional Trade Agreement (RTA) is compliance with the international obligations of the international legal framework which constrains and shapes any economic cooperation among economic entities.? Perhaps the best known framework is that of the WTO. Korea is a member of the WTO, and therefore, in negotiating any RTA, must comply with its rules regarding the formation of any preferential trading arrangement.? The WTO administers a number of agreements which regulate aspects of international trade including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).? The “cornerstone” of the WTO framework is the MFN obligation which requires that there be no discrimination among trading partners.? However, despite the fact that the aim is to do away with discrimination in international trade through the imposition of a general MFN obligation, the GATT and the GATS both have provisions which allow preferential trade to take place in certain circumstances.? However, to ensure that these preferential trade areas comply with the primary objective of liberal trade, the rules impose several conditions on the creation of such trading areas.? These provisions form the legal framework, with which such preferential trading areas must comply. However, the GATT framework is restricted to regulating trade relations, and the rules provided by the GATT are confined to regulating preferential trade in goods among participants. The GATT rules do not regulate other aspects of economic cooperation. The GATS, which was concluded at the Uruguay Round, brought the regulation of services within the WTO framework, and provides rules for preferential trade in services, similar to those provided for trade in goods by the GATT, but these rules are confined to regulating preferential trade in services. Modern economic relations have become increasing complex. ‘... [T]rade policy is no longer [just] about trade measures at the border.’? A number of agreements go beyond the requirements of the GATT/GATS in providing for economic cooperation.? A distinction is commonly made between shallow and deep integration:? ‘shallow’ integration referring to the elimination of the traditional border measures, tariffs and non-tariff measures; ‘deep’ integration referring to policies that are beyond the border.? These are sometimes referred to as “GATT +” (“WTO +”) agreements.? As these agreements are frequently regional in nature, the broader term Regional Trading Arrangement (RTA) is often used to apply to these relationships. One of the characteristics of recent regional trade agreements (RTAs) are (sic) their comprehensiveness. Not only do they cover the reduction or elimination of tariffs and other non-tariff barriers on the trade of goods and services, but they also cover broader elements such as investment rules, intellectual property rights and so on. “[A]lmost all of the deep integration features of recent RTAs are outside the WTO rules.”? To the extent that these activities are not regulated by an Agreement under the WTO or by some other international obligation, parties to an RTA are free to come to their own agreement for regulating these aspects of their relations.? For example, most economic cooperation agreements also contain provisions regarding foreign direct investment.? The GATT has very few provisions regulating investment, and these are limited to the “trade related” aspects of investment measures (TRIMs).? The multilateral framework for the regulation of international investment is not very developed, so parties are much freer to come to their own arrangements in this area.? Also, RTAs concentrate as much on trade facilitation (e.g., elimination of technical and regulatory obstacles) as on trade liberalisation.? These are features not regulated by the WTO framework, and, to the extent that there are no other applicable international agreements, parties to an RTA are free to deal with these matters as they wish.? To the extent that such measures only apply among parties to the RTA, they can be discriminatory. The rising number of RTAs is increasing the risk of incoherent trade policy regulations being implemented through these special regimes, as well as discriminating among trade partners.?? There is concern that the global rules?based system built on non?discrimination could give way to a complex web of differing regional and multilateral rules.? Further, as the number of RTAs increases and overlap, the coexistence in a single country of different trade rules and provisions is a frequent feature.? This lack of uniformity can severely hamper trade flows by the sheer fact of the costs involved for traders in meeting multiple sets of trade rules, and dealing with the many bureaucracies that are created.? Many of these arrangements also include a dispute settlement mechanism.? Thus, there is the potential for competing dispute settlement procedures. Faced with a maze of differing standards, rules of origin and dispute settlement procedures, business may simply opt to ignore the trading system--preferring no rules to the tangled web we are weaving... a maze of conflicting regional regulations, standards and rules of origin risk becoming the new “walls” between blocks. Many of the areas outside the scope of WTO regulation have been addressed by APEC.? APEC can play a role in establishing a framework providing for uniformity in these areas.? The APEC framework differs from the WTO framework in that, while the WTO framework is comprised of binding rules, the APEC framework is comprised of non-binding commitments - a “soft law” approach. These voluntary, non-binding, commitments are elements of the framework for governing economic relations among APEC members, and as Korea is a member of APEC, should be taken into consideration in the formation of Korean RTAs. Since 2003, Korea has actively engaged in FTA negotiations with over 50 countries, and has concluded arrangements with seven partners, five of which have entered into effect.? This is part of the proliferation of preferential trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region, which has created what has been referred to as the Asian noodle bowl effect of FTAs. This paper will examine the role played by the international legal framework in regulating the formation of Korean RTAs.? The following Part will first briefly discuss the Role of International Law in the governance of regional economic cooperation.? Part 2 will then consider the “hard law” framework of the WTO, and Part 3 will consider the “soft law” framework of APEC.