1 Expropriation Provisions under Investment Protection Treaties: Recent Decisions and New Drafting or Fifty-Two Words for Snow Sophie Nappert Denton Wilde.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hamid Dom Reg WS March 04 1 INTRODUCTION THE GATS and DOMESTIC REGULATION.
Advertisements

Proactive Interventions: Incorporating a Children’s Rights Approach
Article XXXVI – Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession 1. – This Protocol shall be open for signature in Berlin on 9 March 2012 by.
EDUCATION Directive 2002/14/EC of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community.
Dannemann.com.br COMPENSATION TO MASTER FRANCHISORS UPON TERMINATION AND NON-RENEWAL OF MASTER FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS IN BRAZIL © 2012 Dannemann Siemsen.
C-342/10 Commission v. Finland Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Free movement of capital – Article 63 TFEU – EEA Agreement – Article 40.
BIICL - Investment Treaty Forum Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaty Law September 9, 2005, Gray’s Inn, London Session Three: The Emergency.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids The Real Deal on International Trade; Investment Agreements; and Packaging and Labeling Regulations.
Measures to Protect Legitimate Public Welfare Objectives as an Exception of Indirect Expropriation Kind of clause that must be included – an experience.
Page 1 Business income and associated enterprise Prashant Khatore.
International Investment Agreements – Balancing Sustainable Development and Investment Protection 10–11 October 2013, Berlin Treaty Interpretation Katharina.
Reform of Arbitration Law The New Arbitration Ordinance (Chapter 609) # Frank Poon Solicitor General (Acting) Department of Justice Hong Kong SAR.
© OECD A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, principally financed by the EU European Court of Justice Prof. Dr. Martin Trybus Birmingham.
EU: Bilateral Agreements of Member States
EU: Bilateral Agreements of Member States. Formerly concluded international agreements of Member States with third countries Article 351 TFEU The rights.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Exception to rules on free trade Need to strike a balance between free trade and other values. Member can justify measures incompatible with WTO Agreements.
Energy investments in the EU and Russia
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. How Foreign.
China’s Investment Treaty Policy ---Recent Changes and Future Direction Wenhua Shan Xi’an Jiaotong University, China Oxford Brookes University, UK.
1 Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments -Recent Developments- Xiamen University – 18 February 2011 Josine van Wanrooij.
Investment: TRIMS and Bilateral Investment Provisions October- 1 November 2007, International Training Centre of the ILO, Turin.
Investment Treaties University of Miami School of Law September 10, 2008 Mark Anderson Counsel — Latin America & the Caribbean Caterpillar Inc.
Key Issues (and Concerns) of Foreign Investors in the Energy Sector Protection under Investment Treaties Willibald Plesser 9 June 2008, Tirana.
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims JUDr. Radka Chlebcová.
Model diagram to consider infrastructure projects in Serbia Aleksandar Kovacevic.
Legislation Concerning Disability Employment in Thailand National Office for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (NEP.), Ministry of Social Development.
Article 9, paras.1 and 2 of the Aarhus Convention: overview “IMPLEMENTING THE AARHUS CONVENTION TODAY: PAVING THE WAY TO A BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND GOVERNANCE.
Investment Treaty Practice of China, Japan and Korea Arbitration Academy 2012: Class 3 Professor Hi-Taek Shin Seoul National University School of Law [Work.
The Impact of the TTIP on Europe’s Investment Arbitration Architecture Dr. Roland Kläger10. DAJV Fachgruppentag - 21 March 2014.
International Trade Regulations: the Law of the WTO Professor Mohammad F. A. Nsour Class 3 1.
Introduction to Investment Treaties and Health Benn M c Grady, PhD O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University Law Center.
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)
ZIEMONS & RAESCHKE ‑ KESSLER RECHTSANWÄLTE BEIM BUNDESGERICHTSHOF.
Offshore pipelines as an investment under the Energy Charter Treaty Nikolaos Giannopoulos Phd Candidate, University of Athens.
PATENTS, INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Presented By: Navdeep World Trade Organization.
INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION Current Practices, Challenges and Future Paths duensingkippen.com Olaf Duensing, FCIArb DUENSING KIPPEN, LTD DUENSING KIPPEN.
1 M O N T E N E G R O Negotiating Team for the Accession of Montenegro to the European Union Working Group for Chapter 9 – Financial Services Bilateral.
M O N T E N E G R O Negotiating Team for the Accession of Montenegro to the European Union Working Group for Chapter 30 –External Relations Bilateral screening:
ZHANG Jiao 17 March  Preliminary study and rationale - background - problem statement and focus  Research question(s)  Literature review  Research.
International Investment Law (10) ZHANG Jiao
Prof. Dr. Andreas Fisahn ISDS and CETA. CETA Agreement form renovated the ICSID procedural rules The Joint Committee shall appoint fifteen Members.
Commercial Law and International Transactions Basic Information on the Course Time & Location: –Thursday; room a.m. Commercial Law (lecturer.
Bouchemla Lanouar & Associés - BL&A In association with the Algerian law firm of Me Fatima-Zohra Bouchemla 1 Algeria - UK Investment Forum El Aurrassi.
ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS- EMERGING TRENDS Talat Ansari Kelley Drye & Warren LLP New York March 16, 2013.
Agencija za zaštitu ličnih/osobnih podataka u Bosni i Hercegovini Агенција за заштиту личних података у Босни и Херцеговини Personal Data Protection Agency.
MOST FAVORED NATION TREATMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS & INVESTMENT ARBITRATION IN CHINA.
LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ICJ, Advisory Opinion,
Class Unification of Law - Uniform Law (Rechtsvereinheitlichung) Summer term 2015.
ZHANG Jiao International Investment Law (5). Review ICSIDNAFTABITFDIIIAs.
张皎 ZHANG Jiao 3 March International investment and international investment law International investment law regime Standards of protection (1)
Santa Elena S.A. X Costa Rica International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
SESSION 3: INVESTMENT PROTECTION AND INVESTOR- STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (ISDS) 17 March 2016 Amb. Manuel A.J. TEEHANKEE.
Exception to rules on free trade
THE NEW GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION: A EUROPEAN OR A GLOBAL STANDARD? Bart van der Sloot Senior Researcher Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology,
INTERNATIONAL AND CONTRACTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SEE CROSS-BORDER PIPELINE PROJECTS Ana Stanič 23 June 2010.
Package of agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement
Centre for Environmental, Resources and Energy Law (CEREL)
EU Competences Tamara Ćapeta 2016.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Russia Roman Zaitsev, PhD, Partner 05/09/2018.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards
Investment Arbitration as a Method of Enforcing Arbitral Awards in India Anirudh Wadhwa Advocate.
Investment Arbitration as a Method of Enforcing Arbitral Awards in India Anirudh Wadhwa Advocate.
INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION: AN OVERVIEW
Sub-Regional Meeting for ASEAN Countries on the Marrakesh Treaty and the Production and Exchange of Accessible Books by the World Intellectual Property.
Institutional changes The role of Bilateral Oversight Boards
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) IN FP7
Dilemma Case study – Phillip Morris v Uruguay Lessons.
Alexander Uff | November 18, 2018
Legal Basis: CRITERIA FOR MAKING DATA PROCESSING LEGITIMATE
Presentation transcript:

1 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

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

3 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 MITs The Energy Charter Treaty Article 13: Expropriation (1)Investments of Investors of a Contracting Party in the area of any other Contracting Party shall not be nationalised, expropriated or subjected to a measure or measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation except where such expropriation is: (a)for a purpose which is in the public interest; (b)not discriminatory; (c)carried out under due process of law; and (d)accompanied by the payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation. …. [Compensation provisions] (5) For the avoidance of doubt, expropriation shall include situations where a contracting party expropriates the assets of a company or enterprise in its area in which an investor of any other contracting party has an investment, including through the ownership of shares.

11 NAFTAArticle 1110: Expropriation and Compensation 1.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 of such an investment ("expropriation"), except: (a)for a public purpose; (b)on a non-discriminatory basis; (c)in accordance with due process of law and Article 1105(1); and (d)on payment of compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 6. …. [Compensation provisions; intellectual property rights] 8. For purposes of this Article and for greater certainty, a non-discriminatory measure of general application shall not be considered a measure tantamount to an expropriation of a debt security or loan covered by this Chapter solely on the ground that the measure imposes costs on the debtor that cause it to default on the debt. CAFTAArticle 10.7: Expropriation and Compensation 1. No Party may expropriate or nationalise a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalisation ("Expropriation"), except: (a)for a public purpose; (b)in a non-discriminatory manner; (c)on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 4; and (d)in accordance with due process of law and Article …. [compensation provisions; intellectual property rights]

12 CAFTAArticle 10.7: Expropriation and Compensation Annex 10-C: Expropriation The Parties confirm their shared understanding that: 1.Article is intended to reflect customary international law concerning the obligation of States with respect to expropriation. 2.An action or a series of actions by a Party cannot constitute an expropriation unless it interferes with a tangible or intangible property right or property interest in an investment. 3.Article addresses two situations. The first is direct expropriation, where an investment is nationalized or otherwise directly expropriated through formal transfer of title or outright seizure. 4The second situation addressed by Article is indirect expropriation, where an action or series of actions by a Party has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure. (a)The determination of whether an action or series of actions by a Party, in a specific fact situation, constitutes an indirect expropriation, requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers, among other factors: (i)the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or series of actions by a Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred; (ii)the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment- backed expectations; and (iii)the character of government action. (b) Except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory 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.

13 BITs BIT: Germany and Pakistan (1959) Article 3 1. [Full protection and security] 2. Nationals or companies of either Party shall not be subjected to expropriation of their investments in the territory of the other Party except for public benefit against compensation, which shall represent the equivalent of the investments affected. Such compensation shall be actually realisable and freely transferable in the currency of the other Party without undue delay. Adequate provision shall be made at or prior to the time of expropriation for the determination and the grant of such compensation. The legality of any such expropriation and the amount of compensation shall be subject to review by due process of law. 3. [Most favoured nation treatment] BIT: the USA and Ukraine (1996) Article III 1. Investments shall not be expropriated or nationalised either directly or indirectly through measures tantamount to expropriation or nationalisation ("Expropriation") except: for a public purpose; in a non-discriminatory manner; upon payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation; and in accordance with due process of law and the general principles of treatment provided for in Article II (2). …[Compensation provisions] 2. A national or company of either Party that asserts that all or part of its investment has been expropriated shall have a right to prompt review by the appropriate judicial or administrative authorities of the other Party to determine whether any such expropriation has occurred and, if so whether any such expropriation, and any associated compensation, conforms to the principles of international law. 3. [Most favoured nation treatment]

14 BIT: Chile and the UK (1996) Article 4: Expropriation 1. Investments of investors of either Contracting Party shall not be nationalised, expropriated or subjected to measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation (hereinafter referred to as "Expropriation") in the territory of the other Contracting Party unless the measures are taken for a public benefit related to the internal needs of that Party in a non-discriminatory manner, by authorisation of a formal law, and against prompt, adequate and effective compensation. …[Compensation provisions] 2. Where a Contracting Party expropriates the assets of an investor which is incorporated or constituted under the law enforced in any part of its own territory, and in which investors of the other Contracting Party own shares, it shall ensure that the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article are applied to the extent necessary to guarantee prompt, adequate and effective compensation in respect of their investment to such investors of the other Contracting Party who are owners of those shares US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Article 6: Expropriation and Compensation 1. Neither Party may expropriate or nationalise a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalisation ("expropriation"), except: (a)for a public purpose; (b)in a non-discriminatory manner; (c)on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation; and (d)in accordance with due process of law and Article 5 [minimum standard of treatment] (1) through (3). 5. [Compensation provisions and intellectual property rights]

US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Article 6: Expropriation and Compensation Annex B: Expropriation The Parties confirm their shared understanding that: 1.Article 6 [Expropriation and Compensation](1) is intended to reflect customary international law concerning the obligation of States with respect to expropriation. 2.An action or a series of actions by a Party cannot constitute an expropriation unless it interferes with a tangible or intangible property right or property interest in an investment. 3.Article 6 [Expropriation and Compensation] (1) addresses two situations. The first is direct expropriation, where an investment is nationalized or otherwise directly expropriated through formal transfer of title or outright seizure. 4.The second situation addressed by Article 6 [Expropriation and Compensation] (1) is indirect expropriation, where an action or series of actions by a Party has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure. (a)The determination of whether an action or series of actions by a Party, in a specific fact situation, constitutes an indirect expropriation, requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers, among other factors: (i)the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or series of actions by a Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred; (ii)the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment- backed expectations; and (iii)the character of government action. (b) 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.

16 Canada's model FIPA (2004) Article 13: Expropriation Neither Party shall nationalise or expropriate a covered investment either directly, or indirectly through measures having an affect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation (hereinafter referred to as ' expropriation‘), except for a public purpose, in accordance with due process of law, in a non-discriminatory manner and on prompt, adequate and effective compensation. The investor affected shall have a right, under the law of the Party making the expropriation, to prompt review, by a judicial or other independent authority of that Party, of its case and of the valuation of its investment in accordance with the principles set out in this Article. Annex B.13(1): Expropriation The Parties confirm their shared understanding that: (a) Indirect expropriation results from a measure or series of measures of a Party that have an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure; (b) The determination of whether a measure or series of measures of a Party constitute an indirect expropriation requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers, among other factors: (i)the economic impact of the measure or series of measures, although the sole fact that a measure or series of measures of a Party has an adverse affect on the economic value of an investment does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred; (ii)the extent to which the measure or series of measures interfere with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations; and (iii)the character of the measure or series of measures; (c) 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.

17 Closer Economic Partnership Agreement between Thailand and New Zealand (2005) Article 9.11: Expropriation 1.Neither Party shall nationalise, expropriate or subject to measures equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation (hereinafter referred to as "expropriation") the covered investments of investors of the other Party unless the following conditions are complied with: (a)the expropriation is for a public purpose related to the internal needs of that Party; (b)the expropriation is under due process of law; (c)the expropriation is non-discriminatory; and (d)the expropriation is accompanied by the payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation. Agreement between China and Germany on the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments Article 4: Expropriation and Compensation 2. Investments by Investors of either Contracting Party shall not directly or indirectly be expropriated, nationalised, or subjected to any other measure, the effects of which would be tantamount to expropriation or nationalisation in the territory of the other Contracting Party (hereinafter referred to as expropriation) except for the public benefit and against compensation. … At the request of the Investor the legality of any such expropriation and the amount of compensation shall be subject to review by national courts, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9.

18 Comprehensive economic co- operation agreement between India and Singapore (2005) Article 6.5: Expropriation 1. Neither Party shall take any measure of expropriation against the investments of investors of the other Party unless the measures are taken on a non-discriminatory basis, for a purpose authorised by law, in accordance with due process of law and against payment of compensation in accordance with this Article. 3. The investor whose investment is expropriated shall have a right of access to the Courts of Justice or the administrative tribunals or agencies of the Party making the expropriation to seek a view of the expropriation measure or valuation of the compensation that has been assessed in accordance with the principles and provisions set out in this Article. 4. When a Party expropriates the assets of an enterprise which is incorporated or constituted under the laws in force in any part of its own territory, and in which investors of the other Party own shares, it shall ensure that the provisions of paragraph 1 and 2 are applied to the extent necessary to guarantee compensation as specified therein to such investors of the other Party who are owners of those shares. 5. This Article does not apply to the issuance of compulsory licences granted in relation to intellectual property rights, or to the revocation, limitation or creation of intellectual property rights to the extent that such issuance, revocation, limitation, operation is consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Note: The author wishes to thank her colleague Anna Owen-Davies for her invaluable research assistance.