Renegotiation vs. Additional Negotiation

The government said that it would have an “additional negotiation” with the United States so that U.S. beef from cattle older than 30 months is prevented from entering the Korean market, stressing that the “additional negotiation” is almost the same as “renegotiation.”

There is no such thing as “renegotiation” or “additional negotiation” in international law.

However, “renegotiation” refers to nullify an agreement and start the negotiation again from scratch. In comparison, “additional negotiation” means adding new contents to the existing agreement without revising or complementing it. Normally, it is done in the form of adding some contents to the appendix of an agreement.

If the government nullifies the U.S. beef import conditions agreed on April 18 and adds new conditions, such as an import ban on beef products from cattle older than 30 months, it amounts to “renegotiation.” If the government gain guarantee from the U.S. government that it would not allow beef from older cows to enter the Korean market without revising the clauses of the agreement, it will be considered an “additional negotiation.”

Then, why is the government avoiding using of the term “renegotiation”?

That is because national trust is at stake. If it uses the word “renegotiation,” negotiating partners in the future can make excessive demands from the beginning of negotiation, raising issue with Korea’s trustworthiness. A Foreign Ministry official said, “As there is no way for the United States to accept the term ‘renegotiation,’ the government intends to use ‘additional negotiation’ instead, while pursuing actual benefits.” He also added, “Substance is more important than formality.”

However, there is a controversy even within the ministry over the fact that Trade Minister Kim Jong-hoon described the upcoming negotiation as an “additional negotiation,” rather than an “additional consultation.”

That is because the import conditions have to be on the negotiating table since he called it an “additional negotiation.” Kim himself said, “Some say that a written guarantee of import ban on beef from cattle older than 30 months can be a solution. But this makes government intervention stand out too much and can cause another problem.” A ministry official said, “Kim should have just said that he would visit the United States to have an additional consultation.”

U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow said, “There will be additional understandings between the two countries in a few days,” suggesting that there is a possibility that the trade ministers of the two countries would exchange the government guarantee of voluntary restraint from the private sectors in the form of MOU.

The government had reviewed the `voluntary export restraint system` in which exporters control specific conditions and quantities on a voluntary basis, but put it aside in the face of opposition that voluntary restraint not supported by a government guarantee would be ineffective.

jin0619@donga.com