The Valuation Date of an Unlawfully Expropriated Property in International Investment Arbitration: A Critique of Acquisitive Valuation

Abstract The valuation date of an expropriated property is considered a major element in the calculation of compensation. Some international investment tribunals, relying on the standard set by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the Chorzów Factory case, have adopted a dual stand...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:ICSID review 2022-01, Vol.36 (2), p.441-463
Hauptverfasser: Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali, Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan
Format: Magazinearticle
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 463
container_issue 2
container_start_page 441
container_title ICSID review
container_volume 36
creator Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali
Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan
description Abstract The valuation date of an expropriated property is considered a major element in the calculation of compensation. Some international investment tribunals, relying on the standard set by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the Chorzów Factory case, have adopted a dual standard for determining the valuation date and have switched between the date of taking and the date of award to secure the highest amount of compensation in cases of unlawful expropriation. For the proponents of this method, it helps to distinguish between compensation for lawful and unlawful expropriations. This article labels such an approach as ‘acquisitive valuation’ and challenges its legal justification. It shows that acquisitive valuation is associated with punitive damages and fails to comply with the standard set out in the Chorzów Factory case. Using the ex post information is similarly to be avoided under that standard. Finally, although mindful of the hindsight issue, the article advocates the adoption of the date of taking as the valuation date in both lawful and unlawful expropriations. The extension of the scope of damages, including the loss of profit and consequential damages, if incurred, to the point in time when the investment was reasonably expected to continue instead of limiting the compensation to the fair market value of investment at the date of taking would more properly reflect the difference between lawful and unlawful expropriations.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/icsidreview/siab011
format Magazinearticle
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_icsidreview_siab011</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20220203061578</informt_id><oup_id>10.1093/icsidreview/siab011</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/icsidreview/siab011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-1c852a4b75471d35392a9921bb8c9c19646736246c047dd71bf60db40c881503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtOAjEUhhujiYg-gZu-wMBpO7e6I4hCQqILdNt0Oh2tGWag7YC8gM9tHTRh6epc_-_k_AjdEhgR4GxslDOl1Tuj92NnZAGEnKEBhZhHhHN-jgZAkzxiKYdLdOXcBwDjlMIAfa3eNX6VdSe9aRt8L73GbYVlg1-aWu6rrq4PePa5se3GmjAs8XNItfUHbBq8aLy2TS-Vdah22vm1bjye2MJ42w_u8ARPrfFm2_Xoidp2xoV6d3L4Gl1Usnb65jcO0ephtprOo-XT42I6WUaKAfMRUXlCZVxkSZyRkiXhCck5JUWRK64IT-M0YymNUwVxVpYZKaoUyiIGleckATZE7IhVtnXO6kqEr9bSHgQB8eOkOHFS_DoZVPOjyq6NF_LNuI0XTkur3oVpqrZvt_ZNlK35ATFG0r81CsFmCgxSkmR5QI2OqLbb_Ov2N03glx4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype></control><display><type>magazinearticle</type><title>The Valuation Date of an Unlawfully Expropriated Property in International Investment Arbitration: A Critique of Acquisitive Valuation</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali ; Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan</creator><creatorcontrib>Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali ; Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract The valuation date of an expropriated property is considered a major element in the calculation of compensation. Some international investment tribunals, relying on the standard set by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the Chorzów Factory case, have adopted a dual standard for determining the valuation date and have switched between the date of taking and the date of award to secure the highest amount of compensation in cases of unlawful expropriation. For the proponents of this method, it helps to distinguish between compensation for lawful and unlawful expropriations. This article labels such an approach as ‘acquisitive valuation’ and challenges its legal justification. It shows that acquisitive valuation is associated with punitive damages and fails to comply with the standard set out in the Chorzów Factory case. Using the ex post information is similarly to be avoided under that standard. Finally, although mindful of the hindsight issue, the article advocates the adoption of the date of taking as the valuation date in both lawful and unlawful expropriations. The extension of the scope of damages, including the loss of profit and consequential damages, if incurred, to the point in time when the investment was reasonably expected to continue instead of limiting the compensation to the fair market value of investment at the date of taking would more properly reflect the difference between lawful and unlawful expropriations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0258-3690</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2049-1999</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siab011</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Customary law, International ; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ; Investments, Foreign ; Permanent Court of International Justice</subject><ispartof>ICSID review, 2022-01, Vol.36 (2), p.441-463</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ICSID. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 2021</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-2173-2484</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,784,1584,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan</creatorcontrib><title>The Valuation Date of an Unlawfully Expropriated Property in International Investment Arbitration: A Critique of Acquisitive Valuation</title><title>ICSID review</title><description>Abstract The valuation date of an expropriated property is considered a major element in the calculation of compensation. Some international investment tribunals, relying on the standard set by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the Chorzów Factory case, have adopted a dual standard for determining the valuation date and have switched between the date of taking and the date of award to secure the highest amount of compensation in cases of unlawful expropriation. For the proponents of this method, it helps to distinguish between compensation for lawful and unlawful expropriations. This article labels such an approach as ‘acquisitive valuation’ and challenges its legal justification. It shows that acquisitive valuation is associated with punitive damages and fails to comply with the standard set out in the Chorzów Factory case. Using the ex post information is similarly to be avoided under that standard. Finally, although mindful of the hindsight issue, the article advocates the adoption of the date of taking as the valuation date in both lawful and unlawful expropriations. The extension of the scope of damages, including the loss of profit and consequential damages, if incurred, to the point in time when the investment was reasonably expected to continue instead of limiting the compensation to the fair market value of investment at the date of taking would more properly reflect the difference between lawful and unlawful expropriations.</description><subject>Customary law, International</subject><subject>International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes</subject><subject>Investments, Foreign</subject><subject>Permanent Court of International Justice</subject><issn>0258-3690</issn><issn>2049-1999</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkMtOAjEUhhujiYg-gZu-wMBpO7e6I4hCQqILdNt0Oh2tGWag7YC8gM9tHTRh6epc_-_k_AjdEhgR4GxslDOl1Tuj92NnZAGEnKEBhZhHhHN-jgZAkzxiKYdLdOXcBwDjlMIAfa3eNX6VdSe9aRt8L73GbYVlg1-aWu6rrq4PePa5se3GmjAs8XNItfUHbBq8aLy2TS-Vdah22vm1bjye2MJ42w_u8ARPrfFm2_Xoidp2xoV6d3L4Gl1Usnb65jcO0ephtprOo-XT42I6WUaKAfMRUXlCZVxkSZyRkiXhCck5JUWRK64IT-M0YymNUwVxVpYZKaoUyiIGleckATZE7IhVtnXO6kqEr9bSHgQB8eOkOHFS_DoZVPOjyq6NF_LNuI0XTkur3oVpqrZvt_ZNlK35ATFG0r81CsFmCgxSkmR5QI2OqLbb_Ov2N03glx4</recordid><startdate>20220124</startdate><enddate>20220124</enddate><creator>Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali</creator><creator>Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2173-2484</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220124</creationdate><title>The Valuation Date of an Unlawfully Expropriated Property in International Investment Arbitration: A Critique of Acquisitive Valuation</title><author>Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali ; Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-1c852a4b75471d35392a9921bb8c9c19646736246c047dd71bf60db40c881503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><prefilter>magazinearticle</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Customary law, International</topic><topic>International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes</topic><topic>Investments, Foreign</topic><topic>Permanent Court of International Justice</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>ICSID review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bahmaei, Mohammad-Ali</au><au>Faraj Mehrabi, Hassan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Valuation Date of an Unlawfully Expropriated Property in International Investment Arbitration: A Critique of Acquisitive Valuation</atitle><jtitle>ICSID review</jtitle><date>2022-01-24</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>441</spage><epage>463</epage><pages>441-463</pages><issn>0258-3690</issn><eissn>2049-1999</eissn><abstract>Abstract The valuation date of an expropriated property is considered a major element in the calculation of compensation. Some international investment tribunals, relying on the standard set by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the Chorzów Factory case, have adopted a dual standard for determining the valuation date and have switched between the date of taking and the date of award to secure the highest amount of compensation in cases of unlawful expropriation. For the proponents of this method, it helps to distinguish between compensation for lawful and unlawful expropriations. This article labels such an approach as ‘acquisitive valuation’ and challenges its legal justification. It shows that acquisitive valuation is associated with punitive damages and fails to comply with the standard set out in the Chorzów Factory case. Using the ex post information is similarly to be avoided under that standard. Finally, although mindful of the hindsight issue, the article advocates the adoption of the date of taking as the valuation date in both lawful and unlawful expropriations. The extension of the scope of damages, including the loss of profit and consequential damages, if incurred, to the point in time when the investment was reasonably expected to continue instead of limiting the compensation to the fair market value of investment at the date of taking would more properly reflect the difference between lawful and unlawful expropriations.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/icsidreview/siab011</doi><tpages>23</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2173-2484</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0258-3690
ispartof ICSID review, 2022-01, Vol.36 (2), p.441-463
issn 0258-3690
2049-1999
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_icsidreview_siab011
source Business Source Complete; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Customary law, International
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Investments, Foreign
Permanent Court of International Justice
title The Valuation Date of an Unlawfully Expropriated Property in International Investment Arbitration: A Critique of Acquisitive Valuation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T18%3A58%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Valuation%20Date%20of%20an%20Unlawfully%20Expropriated%20Property%20in%20International%20Investment%20Arbitration:%20A%20Critique%20of%20Acquisitive%20Valuation&rft.jtitle=ICSID%20review&rft.au=Bahmaei,%20Mohammad-Ali&rft.date=2022-01-24&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=441&rft.epage=463&rft.pages=441-463&rft.issn=0258-3690&rft.eissn=2049-1999&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/icsidreview/siab011&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.1093/icsidreview/siab011%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20220203061578&rft_oup_id=10.1093/icsidreview/siab011&rfr_iscdi=true