Metalclad v. Mexico highlights indirect expropriation under NAFTA, where regulatory actions deprived an investor of economic use. The tribunal ruled in favor of Metalclad, awarding $16.5M, but a Canadian court partially annulled the decision, limiting its scope.

The Tecmed v. Mexico case (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2) established that politically motivated regulatory actions can constitute expropriation. The tribunal ruled that Mexico’s refusal to renew a landfill permit violated investor protections, awarding $5.5M in damages.

Expropriation in international investment law is the compulsory taking of foreign investors' assets by a host state, balancing sovereign rights with investment protection. It includes direct and indirect forms, requiring fair compensation and due process.

The regulatory taking doctrine in international investment law mandates compensation when state regulations significantly impact investments, even without formal expropriation, balancing sovereign regulation and investor protection.

In Saipem S.p.A. v. Bangladesh, ICSID ruled that judicial interference leading to loss of contractual rights is indirect expropriation. This case broadened protection for foreign investors under international investment law.

The doctrine of regulatory taking in international investment law ensures compensation when state regulations significantly impact foreign investments, even without formal expropriation. Balancing sovereign regulation and investor rights remains a key challenge.