Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Law


What is indirect expropriation and how is it different from regulatory measures?

Discuss the concept of indirect expropriation based on state practice and relevant arbitral awards.

Ready Paper Excerpt


Within the past four decades, states have witnessed an increment in foreign investment. This has necessitated the need to ensure regulation and protection of investments through established mechanisms of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). These regulatory mechanisms possess chapters that encompass Investment Protection[1]. The protection of foreign property within a host state has been a considerable issue within the international investment arena. Instances based on direct expropriation comprise coerced or legal asset transfers to the country, nationalization and apprehension of assets by the country[2]. Nevertheless, such undertakings are uncommon presently. Currently, expropriation takes the form of indirect expropriation. Indirect expropriation comprises the measures used by the government that interfere with the privilege of owning the respective property or decreasing the property’s value[3].

The concept of indirect expropriation gained infamous recognition in foreign milieu with the BIT provisions innate of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). International investors relied on the provisions in order to gain an opportunity in filing sophisticated court cases against governments based on allegations of indirect expropriation[4]. This is because indirect expropriation protected investors in cases that were outside the official infringements of their privileges. Nevertheless, indirect expropriation precedes NAFTA. As such, it is important to explore the considerably relevant background of the notion…..

Purchase below and Download the Full Paper – 15 pages


Order an Original Paper

* An original paper is custom written, 0% plagiarized and cannot be resold to a third party