Edited by Andrea K. Bjorklund and August Reinisch
Chapter 10: Is Expropriation Ripe for Codification? The Example of the Non-Discrimination Requirement for Lawful Expropriations
10. Is expropriation ripe for codiﬁcation? The example of the non-discrimination requirement for lawful expropriations August Reinisch* I. INTRODUCTION Any attempt to ‘codify’ or to ‘distill’ principles concerning the rules on expropriation usually contained in International Investment Agreements (IIAs) faces a number of challenges. On the one hand, the exact wording of the rules on expropriation, in particular the scope of the notion of indirect expropriation, the legality requirements and the applicable standard of compensation, may diﬀer from one investment agreement to the other. On the other hand, the speciﬁc interpretation given to such rules may depend upon the individual investment tribunal deciding a speciﬁc dispute. In recent investment arbitration a considerable number of tribunals have addressed expropriation claims,1 though only a few have come to the conclusion that expropriation rules were actually infringed. * The author wishes to thank Andrea K Bjorklund for her comments on an earlier draft of this contribution. 1 ADC Aﬃliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v Republic of Hungary, Award of 2 October 2006, ICSID Case No ARB/03/16, paras 368, 423–45; Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v Mexico, Award of 21 November 2007, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/5, paras 228–52; Azinian, Davitian, & Baca v Mexico, Award of 1 November 1999, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/2, paras 85–124; Azurix v Argentine Republic, Award of 14 July 2006, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, paras 308–23; Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.