1 / 18

Expropriation Provisions under Investment Protection Treaties: Recent Decisions and New Drafting or Fifty-Two Words for

Expropriation Provisions under Investment Protection Treaties: Recent Decisions and New Drafting or Fifty-Two Words for Snow. Sophie Nappert Denton Wilde Sapte BIICL’s Investment Treaty Forum London, 5 May 2006. 7427230.02. Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation

brice
Download Presentation

Expropriation Provisions under Investment Protection Treaties: Recent Decisions and New Drafting or Fifty-Two Words for

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Expropriation Provisions under Investment Protection Treaties: Recent Decisions and New DraftingorFifty-Two Words for Snow Sophie NappertDenton Wilde Sapte BIICL’s Investment Treaty Forum London, 5 May 2006 7427230.02

  2. Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation Measures tantamount to expropriation Constructive expropriation Creeping expropriation De facto expropriation Regulatory takings Fifty-two names for snow

  3. Treaty wording • Energy Charter Treaty • “Investments of Investors of a Contracting Party in the area of any other Contracting Party shall not be nationalised, expropriated or subject to a measure or measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation.” • NAFTA Article 1110 • “No Party may directly or indirectly nationalise or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalisation or expropriation.” • France • “Measures of expropriation or nationalisation or any other measures the effect of which would be direct or indirect dispossession.”

  4. Treaty wording (cont’d) • UK • “Measures having an effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation.” • Others • “Any direct or indirect measure” or “any other measure having the same nature or the same effect against investments” as expropriation.

  5. Indirect expropriation – Regulatory takings Commentary to: • European Convention of Human Rights (1952) • Harvard Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens (1961)(Sohn & Baxter) • OECD Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property (1967) • The American Law Institute’s Restatement Third of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987) • Draft OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment (1998)

  6. Indirect Expropriation – Regulatory Takings Police Powers Doctrine • Saluka Investments BV v the Czech Republic • Award – March 2006 (NL/Czech BIT) • Methanex Corp v the United States of America • Final award – 7 August 2005 (NAFTA)

  7. New Generation Treaties US Model BIT 2004 • The expropriation and compensation provisions are “intended to reflect customary international law concerning the obligations of States with respect to expropriation”. • An action or series of actions cannot constitute expropriation unless it “interferes” with a property right or property interests in an investment. • Direct and indirect expropriation both envisaged in the Treaty.

  8. New Generation Treaties (cont’d) US Model BIT 2004 • Direct expropriation means a formal transfer of title or outright seizure. • Indirect expropriation means actions or series of actions with an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure. • A case-by-case, fact-based enquiry to determine whether an indirect expropriation has occurred. • Factors: • economic impact of the action (adverse economic impact alone is not sufficient) • extent of the interference of action with distinct, reasonable, investment-backed expectations • character of the action.

  9. New Generation Treaties (cont’d) US Model BIT 2004 • “Except in rare circumstances, non-discriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives such as public health, safety and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriations.” Canadian Model FIPA 2004 • “Except in rare circumstances, such as when a measure or series of measures are so severe in the light of their purpose that they cannot be reasonably viewed as having been adopted and applied in good faith, non-discriminatory measures of a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as health, safety and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriation.”

  10. Note: The author wishes to thank her colleague Anna Owen-Davies for her invaluable research assistance.

More Related