Document Type : Article
Authors
1 Assistance Prof., Department of Law, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2 Ph.D. Student in (Public Law), The University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract
Indirect interference of the host State with the investor's right to property has made it very difficult to decide whether the usual restrictions resulting from government intervention are considered expropriation or not. On the one hand, the exceptions to the right of the State to exercise public interest are expanding and on the other hand, the investor seeks economic benefits and stability. The question is what is the most achievable criterion for establishing a balance between the right of the State and the interests of the investor? The present study, after reviewing and analyzing existing theories and justifying the need to amend investment treaties and then review the domestic legal systems, concluded that, in the perspective of international investment, this is slow but decisively rotating towards a new generation of treaties, with emphasis on the right of States to regulate as an inherent right in the State sovereignty, it also creates an attractive space for investment. Therefore, recognizing the right of regulation as a starting point in any treaty can be a framework for creating bilateral or multilateral investment treaties that has not been very successful so far.
Keywords
1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. شیروی، عبدالحسین (1393)، حقوق نفت و گاز، تهران: میزان.
2. هوهن فلدرن، زایدل (1393)، حقوق بین‌الملل اقتصادی، ترجمة سید قاسم زمانی، تهران: دانش.
ب) مقالات
3. حبیب‌زاده، توکل؛ غلامی، عفیفه (1395)، «قراردادهای سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی و قلمرو تعهدات عهدنامه‌ای دولت»، فصلنامة پژوهش حقوق عمومی، ش 51، ص 107-81.
4. دری، محمدجواد (1395)، حمایت‌های حقوقی آژانس میگا و حقوق ایران از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد.
5. سهرابلو، علی؛ طجرلو، رضا (1398)، «اثرپذیری حقوق داخلی از قواعد و هنجارهای حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلة مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورة 49، ش 2، ص 470-449.
6. میری لواسانی، سمیه سادات؛ صادقی زیاری، حاتم؛ حسن‌پور، فاطمه (1397)، «تعهدات زیست‌محیطی سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی»، دانش حقوق و مالیه، ش 3، ص 92-75.
7. میهمی، مهدی؛ باقری، محمود (1395)، «نظریات موجود در احراز سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم و تحولات آن در خصوص سرمایه‌گذاری در حوزة انرژی»، نشریة مطالعات حقوق انرژی، دورة 2، ش2، ص 433-405.
8. میهمی، مهدی (1398)، «انتظارات مشروع سرمایه‌گذار در تقابل با منافع اساسی کشور میزبان و تحلیل آن به‌عنوان ریسک سیاسی»، فصلنامة پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، ش 28، ص 285-255.
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Alqurashi, Zeyad (2005), International oil and gas arbitration, OGEL special study, Vol. 3.
2. Brownlie, Ian (2008), Principles of Public International Law. Seventh edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3. Hohan Feldern , Zeidel(2015), International Economic Law, translated by Qasim Zamani, Tehran, Shahre Danesh (In Persian).
4. Perkams, Markus (2010), The concept of indirect expropriation in comparative public law – searching for light in the dark. In: Schill S,ed. International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law,Oxford University Press.
5. Reinischt, Augut (2008), Expropriation. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F and Schreuer C, eds. The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, Oxford University Press.
6. Shiravi, Abdolhossein (2015), Oil and Gas Law, Tehran, Mizan Legal Foundation (In Persian).
7. Sornarajah, Muthucmaraswamy (2010), The international low on foreign investment, Ed 3, New York, Cambridge university press.
B) Articles
8. Andrew Newcombe (2007),“The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law,” Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 4, Issue 4.
9. Batyrova.Dinara (2017) .“Regulatory expropriation in the jurisprudence of ICSID arbitral tribunal”, LLM Short Thesis , Central European University.
10. Cosmas, Liberatus Gabagambi (2016), “THE PRACTICAL CHALLENGES FACING EXPROPRIATION OR TAKING OF INVESTORS PROPERTY BY THE HOSTING STATES. HOW SHOULD IT BE?” Journal of Asian and African Social Science and Humanities, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 1-16.
11. Dari, Mohammad Javad (2017), “Legal Support of MIGA Agency and Iranian Law on Foreign Investment”, Master Thesis (In Persian).
12. Dolzer, Rudolf (2005), “THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT TREATIES ON DOMESTIC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW”, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS, Vol 37.
13. Earl A. Snyder (1953), “ Measure of Compensation for Nationalization of Private Property” , Catholic University Law Review,Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp.106-117.
14. Habibzadeh, Tavakol, Gholami , Afifeh(2017), “ Foreign investment contracts and the scope of government contractual obligations”, Journal of Public Law Research ,No 51, pp 81-107 (In Persian).
15. Henckels, Caroline (2018),” Should Investment Treaties Contain Public Policy Exceptions?”, Boston College Law Review, Vol. 59, Issue 8, pp. 2825-2844.
16. Louizaki, Christina (2017),” The Right of States to Regulate in International Investment Law”, international Hellenic university.
17. Mihami, Mehdi (2020), “The legitimate expectations of the investor against the fundamental interests of the host country and its analysis as a political risk”, Journal of Private Law Research, No 28, pp 255-285 (In Persian).
18. Mihami, Mehdi, Bagheri, Mahmood (2017), “Theories on indirect expropriation and its developments in energy investment”, Journal of Energy Law Studies , Vol 2,No 2,pp 405-433 (In Persian).
19. Mir Lavasani, Somayeh & Others , (2019), “Environmental commitments of foreign investors”, Knowledge of law and finance, No 3, pp 75-92 (In Persian).
20. Mitchell Kate & Magdalen, College (2014), “ACCOMMODATING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT TREATIES: POLICE POWERS, EXPROPRIATION AND TREATY INTERPRETATION”, Faculty of Law University of Oxford.
21. Mostafa, Ben (2008), “The Sole Effects Doctrine, Police Powers and Indirect Expropriation under International Law”, Australian international law Journal, Vol. 15,pp 267-296.
22. Pasipanodya, Tafadzwa (2015), “Government Regulation on Trial: Expropriation Claims against Latin American States at ICSID”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, lape 14.
23. Reisman, Michael & Robert D. Sloane (2004), “INDIRECT EXPROPRIATION AND ITS VALUATION IN THE BIT GENERATION”, BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, OXFORD university press, New York.
24. Schwartz.Bryan P & Melanie R. Bueckert (2006), “Regulatory Takings in Canada” , WASH. U. GLOBALSTUD. L. REV, vol 5 , Issue3, WASH. U., pp: 488-490.
25. Sohrablo, Ali, Tajarlo, Reza (2020), “The impact of domestic law on the rules and norms of international law”, Journal of Public Law Studies, Vol 49, No 2, pp 47-449 (In Persian).
26. Titi, Aikaterini (2014), “The Right to Regulate in International Investment Law” , Nomos, Studies in International Investment Law Series.
27. Vig, Zoltan & Tamara, Gajinove (2016), “The Development of Compensation Theories in International Expropriation Law”, Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 57, No. 4, pp.447-461.
28. Wittich, Stephan (2002). “The International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Adopted on Second Reading”,Leiden Journal of International Law, pp.891-919.
29. Zamir, Noam (2017), “The Police Powers Doctrine in International Investment Law” , Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 318-337.
C) Awards
30. ICSID (2016), TENARIS S.A. AND TALTA-TRADING E MARKETING SOCIEDADE UNIPESSOAL LDA v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. ARB/11/26.AWARD.
31. ICSID (2010), Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, Case No. ARB/07/24, Award.
32. ICSID (2009), Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award.
33. ICSID (2010), Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and InterAgua Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. The Argentine Republic (“Suez et al. v. Argentina”), Case No. ARB/03/17. Decision on Liability.
34. ICSID (2006), Telenor Mobile Telecommuncations A.S. v. Republic of Hungary (“Telenor v. Hungary”). Case No. ARB/04/15. Award.
35. ICSID (2007), Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (“Vivendi v. Argentina II”). Case No. ARB/97/3. Award.
36. ICSID (2011), El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic, Case No.Arb/03/15, Award.
37. ICSID (2009),Azurix Corp v The Argentine Republic, Case No ARB/01/12,Award.
38. ICSID (2008). Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, Case No ARB/05/22 ,Award.
39. ICSID (2007), CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, Annulment Proceedings, Case No. ARB/01/8,Award.
40. ICSID (2002).LG&E v. Argentina, Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability.
41. UNCITRAL (1976), Pope & Talbot Inc.v. The Government of Canada, NAFTA, Decision.
42. UNCITRAL (2009), Romak S.A. (Switzerland) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan , PCA Case No. AA 280, Award.
43. ICSID (2007). Compañiá de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic , Case No. ARB/97/3, Award.
44. ICSID (2006), Azurix Corp v. Argentina, Case No. ARB/01/12, 14, Award.
45. ICSID (2015), Quiborax S.A. and Non Metallice Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational stste of Bolivia, case No.ARB/06/ 2, Award.
46. PICJ (1925), Permanent Judgement, Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations.
D) Documents
47. EXPROPRIATION, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION , New York and Geneva, 2012.
48. "INDIRECT EXPROPRIATION” AND THE “RIGHT TO REGULATE” IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, September 2004, OECD WORKING PAPERS ON INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT.
)