Abstract
Despite being one of the key concepts in international investment law, the definition of what constitutes expropriation is still very hotly debated. The Award
rendered in the Accession Mezzanine v Hungary arbitration is a clear reminder
of the existence and complexity of such debate. First, the Award controversially
suggests, albeit in an obiter dictum, that ‘no purely contractual rights’ can be
the object of an expropriation, whether direct or indirect. Second, the Award
misses the opportunity to fully address the underexplored question of what
constitutes an indirect expropriation of shares owned by a foreign investor.
Ultimately, the Award raises the broader issue of whether it is fair or even appropriate to expect ad hoc investment tribunals to solve the debate surrounding the definition of expropriation.
rendered in the Accession Mezzanine v Hungary arbitration is a clear reminder
of the existence and complexity of such debate. First, the Award controversially
suggests, albeit in an obiter dictum, that ‘no purely contractual rights’ can be
the object of an expropriation, whether direct or indirect. Second, the Award
misses the opportunity to fully address the underexplored question of what
constitutes an indirect expropriation of shares owned by a foreign investor.
Ultimately, the Award raises the broader issue of whether it is fair or even appropriate to expect ad hoc investment tribunals to solve the debate surrounding the definition of expropriation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Type | Case note |
| Media of output | article |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Volume | 17 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |