An Analysis of Current Views on the Evolution of Determination of Indirect Expropriation: A Case Study of the Energy Sector Investments

Document Type : ISI

Authors

1 Ph.D of private Law, Department of private Law, College of Law and Political Science, ‎Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran

2 Associate Professor, Department of private Law, College of Law and Political Science, tehran university

Abstract

Standard of investor protection has been placed at the center of debate for many years. Although a case-by-case method for establishing indirect expropriation is a practical method and is almost, despite of the divergent views, the prevailing methods in arbitral practice. However, it has been debated whether an attempt to set out a clear, consistent and suitable method must be adopted by arbitral tribunals. This article explores the complexities and ambiguities of the current standards ‎to establish indirect expropriation, and justify the necessity‏ ‏for general  basis or transparent  and ‎ unit criteria which is the preliminary requirements for indirect expropriation, is ‎explained, Finally, inductions from scholars’ views confirm that for establishing the occurrence of indirect expropriation, firstly, State’s actions substantially deprive a foreign investor of the investment profitability and at least one of the fundamental components of the property rights must be destroyed. Secondly, the State’s actions which lead to loss of profitability investment was not reasonably predictable to the investor.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. فارسی
محبی، محسن (1393). مباحثی از حقوق نفت و گاز در پرتو رویۀ داوری بین‌المللی، چاپ سوم، تهران: شهر دانش.
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
Rudolf Dolzer (2010). Indirect Expropriations: New Developments, 6 th edition, oxford university press.
Rudolf Dolzer & Christoph Schreuer (2008). Principles of International Investment Law, 1th edition, Cambridge University Press.
Rudolf Dolzer (2012). New Foundations of the Law of Expropriation of Alien Property, 2 th edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
 
B) Articles
Caroline Henckels (2016). "Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: Revisiting Proportionality Analysis and the Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitration", Journal of World Energy Law and Business, vol. 9.
Orrego Vicuna (2014). "Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Orrego Vicuna", Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol. 5.
GC Christie (2006). "What Constitutes a Taking of Property Under International Law?", N Y. U.L. Review, New york, Vol. 78.
Arno E Gildemeister (2014). "How Much is Too Much: When is Taxation Tantamount to Expropriation", ICSID Rev, vol. 29.
L Yves Fortier & Stephen L Drymer (2008). "Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor", 13(1) Asia Pac L Rev, vol. 13.
Jan Paulsson (2014). "Indirect expropriation: is the right to regulate at Risk?", (12 December 2005), Journal of International Economic Law, ,vol. 17, online: oecd.org<http://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/36055332.pdf> accessed 26 August 2015.
C)  آرای مراجع داوری
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Award, (2012), ARB/06/11, Award. 
El Paso Energy International Company v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Award, (2011), ARB/03/15.
Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, ICSID Award, (2002), ARB (AF)/99/1 Award.
Eudoro A Oguin v Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Award,  (2001), ARB/ 98/5, Award.
ConocoPhillips Company et al v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Award, (2013), ARB/07/30.
Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Award,(2012), ARB/08/5.
Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID Award, (2009), ARB/01/3
LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, and LG&E International, Inc v Argentine Republic, ICSID Award, (2007), ARB/02/1.
Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v The United Mexican States, ICSID Award, (2003) ARB (AF)/00/2.
Total SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Award, (2010), ARB/04/1.
Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic (2007), ARB/02/16 ICSID Award, Total (n 17).
CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Award, (2005), ARB/01/8
Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, BV, Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd, Mobil Venezolana De Petroleos Holdings, Inc, Mobil Cerro Negro,Ltd, and Mobil Venezolana De Petroleos, Inc v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Award,  (2014), ARB/07/27, Award at 97.
Sea-Land Service Inc v Iran, (Iran–US Claims Tribunal),(1984), Award No 135-33-1
SD Myers Inc v Canada , UNCITRAL, (2000), Partial Award.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America , UNCITRAL, (2005), Final Award at para 102.
BG Group Plc v The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, (2007)
Enron (n 1); LG&E (n 3); Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, London Court of International Arbitration ,(2004), UN3467.
Petrobart Limited v The Kyrgyz Republic, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, (2005), 126/2003.
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation, AA 227, Final Award; Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v The Russian Federation, AA 226, Final Award; and Veteran Petroleum Limited(Cyprus) v The Russian Federation, AA 228 (Permanent Court of Arbitration), Final Award.
Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v The Islamic Republic of Iran, The National Iranian Oil Company (1989).
 
D) معاهدات و اسناد
The 2012 US Model BIT maintains most provisions of the 2004 Model BIT. US Department of State, ‘Model Bilateral Investment Treaty’ (20 April 2012), online: state.gov <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm>.
Canada Model BIT 2004, Annex B.13(1), online: italaw.com <http://italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf>.
Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies
Volume 3, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2017
Pages 405-433

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics