Document Type : Original Article
Author
Assistant Professor, LL.B; LL.M in Private Law, LL.M in International Business Law (Shahid Beheshti University of Iran); LL.M in International Oil and Gas Law & Policy (CEPMLP, University of Dundee, UK); DPhil in Law (University of York, UK); Email: hamid.r.younesi@alumni.york.ac.uk
Abstract
The present article aims to argue indirect expropriation in international petroleum agreements and analyze the response of international arbitrations. In particular, international arbitral awards by the Iran–US claims tribunal, the Yukos case as an energy charter treaty arbitration, and certain North American Free Trade Agreement cases have been examined. The recent trend shows that taking foreign investors’ property may occur not only through legislation or nationalization but also by indirect methods that can have the same effect as direct expropriation. Indirect expropriation does not necessarily require the transfer of legal title from the international oil company to the host state. Hence, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate regulation and measures that are tantamount to expropriation with the payment of compensation. Identifying an indirect expropriation is complex and depends upon the examination of the legitimate expectations of the investor concerning the enjoyment of its investment. Host governments may employ different methods to achieve what amounts to direct taking, but without acknowledging it as such, to avoid legal consequences of expropriation and then payment of compensation
Keywords
- Indirect Expropriation
- International Investment Law
- International Petroleum Agreements
- Iran-US Claims Tribunal
- NAFTA
Main Subjects
Aldrich, George (1994), “What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property? The Decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal”, 88 AJIL 585.
Amoco v Iran, (1987) 15 Iran-US CLT. Rep.189.
Boulos, Alfred (2008), “Assessing Political Risks, Supplement. International Primer, Washington: Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Brower, Charles and Brueschke, Jason (1998), The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.
Comeaux, Paul (1998), Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law, Oceana Publications: New York.
Dolzer, Rudolf (1986), “Indirect Expropriation of Alien Property”, 1 ICISD Rev. FILJ 41.
Geiger, Rainer (2003), “Regulatory Expropriation in International Law: Lessons from the Multilateral Agreement on Investment”, 11 NYU. Envtl. L. J. 91.
Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Award of 16 September 2003, (2005) 44 ILM 404.
Hober, Kaj (2003), “Investment Arbitration in Eastern Europe: Recent Cases on Expropriation”, 14 Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 378.
Lowenfeld, Andreas (2003), International Economic Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Yves, Fortier, and Drymer, Stephen (2004), “Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I know it When I See It, Or Caveat Investor”, 19 (2) ICSID Review Foreign Investment Law Journal, 313.
Marvin Feldman v. the United Mexican States, Award, (16 December 2002), ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/1.
Metalclad Corp. v. the United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB AF/97/1, (2000).
Methanex Corp. v. the United States, Final Award, (3 August 2005).
Mouri, Allahyar (1994), The International Law of Expropriation as Reflected in the Work of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
OECD (2004), Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate in International Investment Law, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467, 1 July 2004, (2004) 43 ILM 1248.
Paulsson, Jan and Douglas, Zachary (2004), “Indirect Expropriation in Investment Treaty Arbitrations”, in N. Horn (ed.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Philips Petroleum Co. Iran v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, (1989) 21 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Reports 79.
Pope and Talbot, Inc. v. Government of Canada, Interim Award, (26 June 2000).
Price, Daniel (2001), “NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Frankenstein or Safety Value?”, 26 Can.-US. L. J. 1.
Reinisch, August (2008), Standards of Investment Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Revere Copper and Brass Inc v. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, (1978) 56 International Law Reports 268.
Sedco, Inc. v National Iranian Oil Co., (1985) 9 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Reports.
S.D.Myers. Inc. v Government of Canada, (2001) 40 International Legal Material 1408.
Shanks, Robert (1986), “Insuring Investment and Loans against Currency Inconvertibility, Expropriation, and Political Violence”, 9 Hasting Int’l and Comp. L. Rev. 417, 424.
Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy Stratton, v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Eng’rs of Iran, (1984) 6 Iran-US CTR, 225.
UNCTAD (2005), Investor-State Disputes Arising From Investment Treaties: A Review, United Nations: New York.
UNCTAD (2000), UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, Taking of Property, New York and Geneva: United Nations.
UNCTAD (2004), International Investment Agreements: Key Issues, Vol. I., New York and Geneva: United Nations.
UNCTAD (2005), Investor-State Disputes Arising from Investment Treaties: A Review, New York: United Nations.
Wagner, Martin (1999), “International Investment, Expropriation, and Environmental Protection”, 29 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 465, 517.
Younesi, Hamid (2021), “The Taking Over of the Foreign Investor’s Property by the Host State in International Petroleum Agreements: How International Arbitration Practice Is Responding”, 5 (2) Petroleum Business Review, doi: 10.22050/pbr.2021.277665.1175.
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award of 18 July 2014.
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009, para. 35–46.
)