Domestic Application of Indirection Expropriation Provisions in International Investment Law

KIM YUN-IL; SHIM YOUNGGYOO; KWON HAN-YONG

doi:10.31839/ibt.2021.04.33.165

Since the concept of regulatory expropriation originally developed under U.S. case law has been adopted as the concept of indirect expropriation under international investment law, the recently concluded bilateral and multilateral investment agreements have increasingly introduced the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause with indirect expropriation as the cause of the claim. The 「Korea-US Free Trade Agreement」 (Korea-US FTA), reflecting this trend, has also introduced these provisions of indirect expropriation and ISDS in the Investment Chapter (Chapter 11: Investment). Therefore, in the future, where Korea becomes a litigation party in an ISDS case of which indirect expropriation is the cause of the claim, it is essential to understand the legal principles concerning the criteria and scope of indirect expropriation. This is because the legal consequences of an ISDS litigation which indirect expropriation is the cause of the claim will be very different according to the applied criteria and scope for recognizing indirect expropriation, such as being regarded as compensable indirect expropriation or a non-compensable regulatory measure. As for the criteria for recognizing indirect expropriation under the international investment law, ‘effectiveness test’, ‘purpose test,’ and ‘proportionality test’ have traditionally been established based on arbitration jurisprudence. Among these various standards, arbitral tribunals have mostly adopted ‘proportionality test’ in recent arbitration cases of indirect expropriation, and it is gaining a lot of persuasion. Accordingly, it is necessary to comprehensively review and analyze related theories and major arbitral awards under the international investment law, particularly focusing on the ‘proportionality test’ that has recently become mainstream. Meanwhile, many concerns have been raised in the process of signing the Korea-US FTA because it is not clear whether Korea’s constitution and legal system are appropriate for domestically applying the indirect expropriation and ISDS clauses, or whether major national policies such as real estate policies can be regarded as legitimate regulatory measures under the standards for recognizing indirect expropriation including ‘proportionality test’. In this aspect, this paper reviewed and analyzed whether indirect expropriation provisions are domestically applicable under the Korean legal system and, if applicable, in which national policy areas they can be applied, and whether they are suitable for the ‘proportionality test’. Contrary to initial concerns, the ‘proportionality test’ for indirect expropriation is not unfamiliar to us, and it has already been reflected and applied as a ‘principle of proportionality’ through the judicial decisions of Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court regarding the major national policies, such as real estate policies including development restriction zones or long-term unexecuted urban planning facilities. Therefore, if Korea’s major domestic policies or measures are submitted to arbitration in an ISDS litigation of which indirect expropriation is the cause of the claim, the ‘principle of proportionality’ applied in domestic litigations should be actively and properly utilized in arbitration proceedings. In addition, legal and institutional revision and improvements should be continuously implemented for bridging the gap between the generally established law of indirect expropriation under the international investment law and Korea’s major domestic policies and measures.

Citation status

KCI Citation Counts (1)
열림/닫힘 버튼
REFERENCES (32)
열림/닫힘 버튼
* 2021년 이후 발행 논문의 참고문헌은 현재 구축 중입니다.

[journal] 고헌환 / 2006 / Legal theory on the limitations of Social Restriction to Land property Right / 법학연구 / 한국법학회 (24) : 57~84

[journal] 권한용 / 2013 / The Legal Examination for “Indirect Expropriation” provision in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System / 동아법학 / 법학연구소 (60) : 307~344

[journal] 김민호 / 2007 / Under the Current Korean Constitution, Whether Indirect Expropriation is Constitutional or not? / 저스티스 / 한국법학원 (96) : 88~102

[confproc] 김성진 / 2011 / 한ㆍ미 FTA 투자자국가소송제가 부동산정책에 미치는 영향 / 국회 한ㆍ미 FTA 부동산정책 긴급토론회

[journal] 김연식 / 2013 / Understanding the Indirect Expropriation of KORUS-FTA as a Risk / 공법학연구 / 한국비교공법학회 14(3) : 139~173

[book] 박균성 / 2017 / 행정법론(하) / 박영사

[journal] 배병호 / 2016 / Comparative legal review of domestic and overseas donation systems / 토지공법연구 / 한국토지공법학회 76 : 283~310

[report] 법무부 / 2008 / 한미 FTA 투자분야 연구

[web] 산업통상자원부 / 한ㆍ미 FTA 포털 / https://www.fta.go.kr/us/

[journal] 유희진 / 2011 / Expropriation under International Investment Agreements / 국제경제법연구 / (사)한국국제경제법학회 9(2) : 1~32

[journal] 이욱한 / 2009 / Constitutional Approaches to Indirect Expropriation of the Korea-US FTA / 헌법학연구 / 한국헌법학회 15(1) : 313~350

[report] 전국경제인연합회 / 2016 / 기부채납 제도의 문제점과 개선방안

[journal] 정민정 / 2018 / The Implications of the Inter-State Dispute Settlement System (ISDS) Cases Where the Republic of Korea (ROK) is a Party on Revised KORUS FTA ISDS and Future Challenges / 서울국제법연구 / 서울국제법연구원 25(2) : 89~119 / https://doi.org/10.18703/silj.2018.12.25.2.89

[journal] 정순희 / 2012 / 한ㆍ미FTA 간접수용에 관한 헌법상 위헌여부 / 비교법연구 / 동국대학교 비교법문화연구소 12(2)

[confproc] 조재성 / 2011 / 한미 FTA가 부동산 정책에 미치는 영향과 ISD 분쟁가능성 / 한미 FTA와 부동산 정책 긴급 토론회

[journal] 한상희 / 2007 / 투자자-국가제소제도절차의 위헌성: 한미 FTA협상과 관련하여 / 인권과 공익법 / 건국대학교 출판부 (1)

[journal] 한상희 / 2007 / 한미 FTA와 국가책임 - ISD에서의 간접수용과 그 헌법문제를 중심으로 / 서강법학 / 서강대학교 법학연구소 9

[journal] Dani, Mojtaba / 2015 / The Uncertainty of Legal Doctrine in Indirect Expropriation Cases and The Legitimacy Problems of Investment Arbitration / Widener Law Review 22(1)

[journal] Gregoire, Matthieu / 2015 / Taxation and Expropriation under Bilateral Investment Treaties: Setting the Standard / Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law

[journal] Gulcur, Abdulkadir / 2019 / The Necessity, Public Interest, and Proportionality in International Investment Law: A Comparative Analysis / University of Baltimore Journal of Int’l Law 6(2)

[journal] Henckels, Caroline / 2012 / Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: Revisiting Proportionality Analysis and the Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitration / Journal of International Economic Law 15(1)

[other] / 2000 / Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 Aug

[book] Nelson, Arthur C. / 1995 / Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities / CRC Press Inc

[report] Nikièma, Suzy H. / 2012 / Best Practices: Indirect Expropriation / International Institute for Sustainable Development

[report] OECD / 2004 / “Indirect Expropriation” and the “Right to Regulate” in International Investment Law

[journal] Ranjan, Prabhash / 2019 / Police Powers, Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Law and Article 31 (3)(c) of the VCLT: A Critique of Philip Morris v. Uruguay / Asian Journal of International Law 9(1)

[journal] Rubin, Edward L. / 2019 / The Mistaken Ideas of General Regulatory Takings / Michigan State Law Review 2019(225)

[other] / 2003 / Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF) /00/2, Award, 29 May, 2003

[other] UNCTAD / 2004 / International Investment Agreement: Key Issues, Vol. 1

[journal] Wright, Danaya C. / 2019 / A Requiem for Regulatory Takings : Reclaiming Eminent Domain for Constitutional Property Claims / Environmental Law / University of Florida Levin College of Law 49

[other] / 2014 / Yukos Universal Limited(Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case, No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July, 2014

[journal] Zhu, Ying / 2019 / Do Clarified Indirect Expropriation Clauses in International Investment Treaties Preserve Environmental Regulatory Space? / Harvard International Law Journal 60(2)

KJC Korea
Journal Central

Statistics

Tools

Sharing

Issue List

Citation status