• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.149-170
• /
• 2015

State's compensation obligation accompanied in case of indirect expropriation of foreign investor's investment asset has been established definite principle under international investment law. But the concrete and unified application criterion regarding valuation methods for measuring compensation have not been established yet. The World Bank investment guideline is adopting the Hull's Formula, which is understood as the full compensation standard with prompt adequate effective compensation and Fair Market Value method. It is a general principle that compensation should be equal to the fair market value of investment asset just before indirect expropriation date. However, there is a problem of the valuation method of fair market value of investment asset. In general, discounted cash flow, liquidation value, replacement value, book value, etc. can be the applicable standards. Arbitral tribunals determine compensation by adopting proper valuation method on a case-by-case basis according to the discretion based on the arbitration parties' experts' review on the presented opinion and by considering fact relevance of the issued dispute. This compensation includes also interest, recently it tends to award according to compound interest rather than simple interest. Beginning of the period to generate interest is the next day of the indirect expropriation occurrence date. And it should be considered that interest until the payment of compensation is also included. In addition, it should be considered that mental damages is available only when there's a basis to prove this or special case. Therefore, this study suggests to review of precedents related to indirect expropriation and concretely specify compensation valuation standard and method of indirect expropriation on investment agreements through enough consultation beforehand.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2007

This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.