• Arnaud de NanteuilEmail author
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 15)


The drafters of the CETA expropriation provision seem to have learnt lessons from the past. Expropriation in investment law has indeed been a controversial provision, accused of creating a regulatory chill for host States. Article 8.12 then includes many precisions on aspects that were not well-settled in case law. Even it is a classical expropriation clause in some respect, it also introduces several innovations, such as: a precise list of the criteria that should be taken into account by adjudicators to identify an indirect expropriation; an implicit reference to the proportionality test; several precise rules about compensation. It also prevents conflicts of norms with intellectual property (IP) rules by excluding some IP State measures from the field of expropriation. On the whole, it can be said that this provision shows a great deference vis-à-vis States’ right to regulate and should not render possible any international responsibility of the Parties on the ground of expropriation for legitimate regulation measures. It then participates to a general evolution of international investment law towards a better consideration for States legitimate interests.


Expropriation Police power Legitimate expectations Compensation Right to regulate Indirect expropriation 


  1. Aldrich GH (1994) What constitutes a compensable taking of property? The decisions of the Iran- United States claim Tribunal. Am J Int Law 88:585–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brownlie I (1995) General course on public international law, The Hague Academy of International Law. Recueil des Cours – Collected Courses 255:9–228Google Scholar
  3. Christie G (1962) What constitutes a taking of property under international law? Br Yearb Int Law 38:307–338Google Scholar
  4. Coe J, Rubins N (2005) Regulatory expropriations and the Tecmed case: context and contributions. In: Weiler T (ed) International investment law and arbitration – leading cases from ICSID, NAFTA, bilateral treaties and customary international law. Cameron May, London, pp 597–667Google Scholar
  5. Correa C (2004) Investment protection in bilateral and free trade agreements: implications for the granting of compulsory licenses. Mich J Int Law 26:331Google Scholar
  6. Crawford J (2002) The international law commission’s articles on state responsibility. Introduction, text and commentaries. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. De Nanteuil A (2014) L’expropriation indirecte en droit international de l’investissement. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolzer R (2002) Indirect expropriation: new developments. N Y Univ Environ Law J 11:64–93Google Scholar
  9. Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2008) Principles of international investment law. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dupuy PM, Dupuy F (2015) What to expect from legitimate expectations? A critical appraisal and look from the future ‘legitimate expectation’ doctrine in international investment law. In: Mélanges S. El-Kosheri. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 273–298Google Scholar
  11. Fisher Williams J (1928) International law and the property of Aliens. Br Yearb Int Law 9:1–29Google Scholar
  12. Fortier Y, Drymer L (2004) Indirect expropriation in the law of international investment I know it when I see it, or Caveat investor. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 19:293–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedmann W, Pughs R (1959) Legal aspects on foreign investment. Little, Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson C (2010) A look at the compulsory license in investment arbitration: the case of indirect expropriation. Am Univ Int Law Rev 25:357–422Google Scholar
  15. Jiménez de Aréchaga E (1978) State responsibility for the nationalization of foreign owned property. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 11(2):179–195Google Scholar
  16. Juillard P (1994) L’évolution des sources du droit des investissements, Hague Academy of International law. Recueil des cours / Collected Courses 250:13–215Google Scholar
  17. Kriebaum U (2007) Partial expropriation. J World Invest Trade 8:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lauterpacht E, Nevill P (2010) The different forms of reparation: interest. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 613–622Google Scholar
  19. Legum B Petculescu I (2016) Performance requirements. In: Kinnear M et al (ed) Building international investment law, The first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, pp 415–429Google Scholar
  20. Lowe V (2016) Arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. In: Kinnear M et al (ed) Building international investment law, The first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  21. Muchlinski P (2007) Multinational enterprises and the law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newcombe A (2005) The boundaries of regulatory expropriation in international law. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 20:1–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD (2004) Indirect expropriation and the ‘Right to Regulate’. In: International investment law, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/04, OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  24. Orrego Vicuña F (2003) Regulatory authority and legitimate expectations: balancing the right of the State and the individual under international law in a global society. Int Law Forum 5:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pellet A (2016) Police power or the State’s right to regulate in: Kinnear M et al (ed) Building international investment law, The first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, pp 447–462Google Scholar
  26. Reinisch A (2008) Legality of expropriation. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 171–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reinisch A (2016) National treatment. In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law, The first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, pp 389–397Google Scholar
  28. Reinisch A (2017) The European Union and investor-state dispute settlement: from investor-state arbitration to a permanent investment court. In: De Mestral A (ed) Second thoughts: investor-state arbitration between developed democraties. CIGI, Waterloo, pp 333–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sacerdoti G (1997) Bilateral treaties and multilateral agreements on investment protection, Hague Academy of International law. Recueil des cours / Collected Courses 269:251–460Google Scholar
  30. Sampliner GH (2003) Arbitration of expropriation cases under U.S. investment treaties – a threat to democracy or the dog that didn’t bark? ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 18:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schachter O (1984) Compensation for expropriation. Am J Int Law 78:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schill S (2009) The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schreuer C (2005) The concept of expropriation under the energy charter treaty and other investment protection treaties. Transnl Dispute Manage 2(3):5Google Scholar
  34. Shenkman E (2002) Could principles of fifth amendment takings jurisprudence be helpful in analysing regulatory expropriations claims under international law? N Y Univ Environ Law J 11:174–197Google Scholar
  35. Sohn L, Baxter R (1961) Responsibilities of States for injuries to the economic interests of aliens. Am J Int Law 55:545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stern B (2008) In search of the frontiers of indirect expropriation. In: Rovine A (ed) Contemporary issues in international arbitration and mediation. The Fordham papers 2007. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 29–51Google Scholar
  37. UNCTAD (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreements, vol II. UN Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. UNCTAD (2015) Investment policy framework for sustainable development. UN Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Wälde T, Kolo A (2000) Multilateral investment treaties and environmental expropriation of foreign investment. CEPMLP Online J 5-2Google Scholar
  40. Weston B (1983) The new international economic order and the deprivation of foreign proprietary wealth: some reflexions upon the contemporary international law debate. In: Lillich R (ed) International law of State responsibility for injuries to aliens. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp 89–148Google Scholar
  41. White G (1961) Nationalization of foreign property. Stevens and Sons Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Wortley B (1959) Expropriation in public international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris Est Créteil (Paris 12), Faculté de droitParisFrance

Personalised recommendations