What is Expropriation under International Investment Laws?

Introduction

Expropriation refers to the compulsory taking of the assets of foreign investors by a host State. It is often used interchangeably with the term "taking," which is more commonly recognized by American scholars and within the domestic legal framework of the United States. While the term "taking" in modern law typically refers to expropriation, the legal landscape surrounding this concept has evolved significantly.

The host State refers to the sovereign country where a foreign investment is made. The definition of investment varies from case to case, encompassing equity, debts, and investment contracts.

The principle of expropriation, though prima facie lawful, is often contentious due to the need for States to balance their sovereign rights with the protection of foreign investments. International Investment Law aims to protect and promote foreign investments, recognizing the importance of safeguarding private and sometimes government-controlled commercial activities.

Foreign investors can either be individuals or companies. However, in most investment disputes, the investors are companies. The nationality of an investor plays a crucial role in determining which treaties apply and the jurisdiction of international tribunals.

Expropriation versus Nationalization

Expropriation involves the taking of a foreign investor’s private property by a government acting in its sovereign capacity. Nationalization, a form of expropriation, typically covers an entire industry or geographic region and often occurs during significant social, political, or economic changes. Nationalizations are generally statutory and have broader coverage compared to expropriations.

Treaty Practice

Expropriation provisions are a common feature in International Investment Agreements (IIAs). These agreements sometimes use terms such as "deprivation" instead of "expropriation." Because IIAs often do not define the term, arbitral tribunals tend to interpret it based on international law standards derived from customary international law. Some investment treaties explicitly empower arbitral tribunals to determine the amount of compensation payable for expropriation.

Types of Expropriation

Expropriation can be classified into two main categories: direct and indirect expropriation.

1. Direct Expropriation

Direct expropriation involves a legal transfer of title or outright physical seizure of property. This type of expropriation, where ownership is forcibly transferred to the state, has become relatively rare in modern times.

2. Indirect Expropriation

Indirect expropriation occurs when a state's actions effectively destroy an investor’s ability to manage, use, or control their property without formally affecting the legal title. Most modern investment treaties explicitly address indirect expropriation. For example, Article 1110(1)[1] of NAFTA addresses both direct and indirect expropriations. This type can take various forms:

• Creeping Expropriation: Gradual expropriation through a series of measures that individually may not qualify as a "taking."
• De Facto Expropriation: Sudden expropriation through a unique, definitive action.
• Judicial Expropriation: When court decisions effectively deprive investors of their property rights.

Most investment treaties provide protection against indirect expropriation, and arbitral tribunals have interpreted their provisions broadly to encompass such measures. The types of measures leading to expropriation are wide-ranging, including regulatory actions that may mimic the effects of indirect expropriation. Some IIAs include language to distinguish between legitimate regulatory measures and expropriatory actions under the police powers doctrine.

Identifying Indirect Expropriation

The determination of indirect expropriation is often complex and fact-specific. The central question is whether the investor has been substantially deprived of the investment's value, even without losing the entire legal interest. Various factors are considered:

• Unreasonable Interference: Any interference with the use, enjoyment, or disposal of property that deprives the owner of its value.
• Regulatory Measures: Actions taken by States for public health, environmental protection, or changes in the regulatory framework.
• Loss of Management or Control: Measures that result in the loss of effective control over the investment.

Challenges in Determining Indirect Expropriation

Due to the diverse ways in which property interests can be affected, defining indirect expropriation remains challenging. Tribunals often focus on the effect of governmental conduct rather than the formal intent to expropriate. This consequential approach emphasizes the impact on foreign property rights or control over an investment.

Elements of Expropriation as Determined by Arbitral Tribunals

1. A Materialized Act by the State

For an expropriation claim to be valid, there must be an identifiable act by the host state. This act must constitute jurii imperii (an act of sovereign authority). Tribunals may consider both actions and inactions by the state. However, the claim must be based on a completed expropriation event.

2. A Property Right as the Object of Expropriation

The claimant must demonstrate ownership of a protected investment. Property rights subject to expropriation may include both tangible and intangible assets, such as trademarks or market access rights.

3. Expropriation of Contractual Rights

Tribunals have recognized contractual rights as subject to expropriation under certain conditions:

• The investor must first seek remedy in the appropriate forum.
• There should be a determination of contractual breach under domestic law.
• The breach must result in a significant decrease in the investment’s value.

Requirements for Lawful Expropriation

Expropriation is not inherently illegal under international law. It is deemed lawful if it meets the following conditions:

• Public Purpose or Interest: The expropriation must serve a legitimate public objective.
• Non-Discrimination: It should not unfairly target specific investors.
• Due Process: The expropriation must comply with procedural fairness.
• Compensation: Prompt, adequate, and effective compensation must be provided.

Under the police powers doctrine, states are not required to compensate investors when they adopt bona fide, non-discriminatory regulations aimed at general welfare, such as public health or safety measures.

Mediation and Dispute Resolution

To effectively manage disputes related to expropriation, mediation should play a pivotal role. Host States and investors must have access to a structured mediation process managed by a legal management company. The legal management company should act as a central authority for risk mitigation and mediation, ensuring that both direct and indirect expropriation claims are resolved efficiently and fairly.

• Scope of Mediation: Include provisions for mediation in BITs and investment contracts.
• Pre-emptive Legal Mandate: Empower the legal management company to act as a pre-emptive authority for resolving disputes.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Ensure that all stakeholders, including businesses, companies, and shareholders, recognize the legal management company's authority in mediation matters.
• Comprehensive Control: The legal management company should manage all processes, stages, and work related to mediation and risk management.

Damages for Expropriation

The Chorzów Factory case[2] provides foundational guidance on the consequences of lawful and unlawful expropriation.

• Lawful Expropriation: Investors are entitled to compensation equating to the losses suffered at the time of expropriation (damnum emergens).
• Unlawful Expropriation: Investors have the right to full reparation, which includes both losses and loss of profits (lucrum cessans).

Reparation can exceed compensation to re-establish the situation that would have prevailed had the expropriation not occurred. While restitution is theoretically possible, it is rarely awarded due to practical or legal challenges.

Expropriation and Other ISDS Concepts

Tribunals have examined the relationship between expropriation and other investment protection standards. They have distinguished expropriation from measures that are discriminatory or amount to unfair treatment. Tribunals have also noted that frustration of an investor’s legitimate expectations may be relevant in assessing indirect expropriation but does not necessarily constitute it.

In conclusion, expropriation under international law encompasses a complex and evolving framework aimed at balancing the sovereign rights of states with the protection of foreign investments. The broad interpretation of expropriatory acts by tribunals underscores the importance of clearly defined treaty provisions and the adherence to established legal principles by host states. Clear guidelines on the boundaries of lawful expropriation can foster confidence in international investments and reduce conflicts between host states and foreign investors.

Conclusion

Expropriation remains a pivotal issue in international investment law, requiring a delicate balance between the sovereign rights of host states to regulate within their territories and the need to protect the investments of foreign stakeholders. While international law acknowledges the right of states to nationalize or expropriate, this right is conditional upon adherence to established legal principles under customary international law and investment treaties. The distinction between lawful and unlawful expropriations has significant implications for the assessment of damages and compensation.

Despite advancements in arbitral decisions and academic discourse, the challenge of delineating non-compensable regulatory measures from compensable indirect expropriations persists. This ambiguity underscores the importance of a comprehensive doctrine to guide both host states and foreign investors. The evolving interpretations by tribunals and the extensive coverage of expropriation in international investment agreements highlight its critical role in fostering a stable and predictable investment environment.

[1] Article 1110(1) of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

[2] Factory at Chorzów, Germany v. Poland, Jurisdiction, Judgment, PCIJ Series A No 9, ICGJ 247 (PCIJ 1927), 26th July 1927.

Download