Indirect expropriation definition

Indirect expropriation refers to measures with effects equivalent to those of direct expropriation. The determination of whether a measure or a series of measures constitutes indirect expropriation requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers the following factors: (1) the economic impact of such measure on the relevant investments; however, an adverse impact of such measure on the economic value of an investment Alone is insufficient to establish the occurrence of indirect expropriation; (2) the degree of discrimination of such measure, with respect to its scope or application, against the investors of the other Party and their investments; (3) the extent to which such measure interferes with the distinct and reasonable investment expectations of the investors of the other Party; (4) whether such measure is adopted in good faith and for the public good, and is in compliance with the principle of proportionality between the measure and the purpose thereof.
View Source
Indirect expropriation means an action or a series of actions tantamount to direct expropriation without formal transfer of ownership of the investment or its direct seizure.
View Source

Examples of Indirect expropriation in a sentence

  • Indirect expropriation occurs if a measure or a series of measures of a Contracting Party has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation, in that it substantially deprives the investor of the fundamental attributes of property in its investment, including the right to use, enjoy and dispose of its investment, without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.

  • The concept of "measures having an effect equivalent to nationalization or expropriation" can also be termed "indirect expropriation." Indirect expropriation results from a measure or series of measures of a Contracting Party that have an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.

  • Indirect expropriation results from a measure or series of measures of a Party that has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.

  • Indirect expropriation results from a measure or a series of measures of a Contracting Party that has an effect equivalent to expropriation without direct formal transfer of title or the right of ownership.

  • Some legal analysts contend that USMCA limits the definition of expropriation so as to protect against “direct” expropriation only, and that it does not protect interests against indirect expropriation.81 Indirect expropriation occurs when a state’s regulatory actions could take effective control of—or interfere with—an investment.

  • Indirect expropriation results from a measure or series of measures of a Contracting Party having an equivalent effect to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.

  • Indirect expropriation usually includes the loss of goodwill and future revenue/profits of a company or an investor as a result of a government measure or policy.

  • The second situation is covered by article 5 Indirect expropriation, where an action or series of actions by a Party has an effect equivalent to expropriation without direct Formal transfer of title or total confiscation.

  • Indirect expropriation is an action or series of actions by a Party that has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.