Expropriation meaning

A Ltd v B Pte Ltd , 4A_172/2023 dated 11 January 2024 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment marks a pivotal pronouncement by Switzerland’s highest court on the ambit and reach of the Singapore–China BIT, and on how the Supreme Court reads the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) when assessing the BIT’s jurisdictional functioning and operation, particularly the extent to which the treaty empowers tribunals in this specific context... What was the background? On 11 January 2024 (published 30 January 2024), the Swiss Supreme Court delivered a German-language ruling earmarked for inclusion in the official court reports, signalling its importance. The dispute involved two Singaporean investors with phosphate mining operations in China. Invoking the 1985 Singapore–China BIT, they alleged China had effected unlawful indirect expropriation. The treaty’s dispute resolution clause conferred jurisdiction on an arbitral tribunal solely for disputes ‘involving the amount of compensation resulting from expropriation...’, thereby delimiting the tribunal’s remit...

The UK Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Graham Stuart, justified the move by saying the ECT is outdated and urgently needs reform; discussions have stalled and a sensible update now seems improbable. Remaining a party would not aid the transition to cleaner, cheaper energy, and could even penalise the UK for its world‑leading drive to achieve net zero. Background to the ECT The ECT is a multilateral treaty concluded in 1994 and entering into force in 1998. It counts 50 states as signatories, including the European Union and its Member States. The treaty was designed primarily to facilitate investment by Western European economies into energy production in Eastern Europe after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). More specifically, one aim was to guarantee Western Europe a dependable energy supply—mainly hydrocarbons—from former USSR republics. In summary, the ECT safeguards investments in the energy sector in two supplementary ways. First, it sets out a range of substantive protections against state actions...

JSC DTEK Krymenergo v The Russian Federation No. 23-3330 United States District Court for the District of Columbia Crimean investment JSC DTEK Krymenergo, part of the DTEK Energy Group of Ukraine, operated the electricity network in Crimea and held a range of local assets. These comprised: Valuable equipment and moveable property Intangible rights, including licences and contractual entitlements Cash holdings and securities Although Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Krymenergo retained ownership until 21 January 2015, when Russia reassigned the property to Crimea and took possession of the company’s office premises. In February 2018, Krymenergo initiated arbitration for alleged breaches of the Russia–Ukraine bilateral investment treaty (BIT) before a PCA tribunal chaired by Professor Juan Fernández-Armesto, with J. William Rowley KC appointed by Krymenergo and Professor Vladimir Pavić appointed by Russia. On 1 November 2023, the tribunal unanimously awarded Krymenergo US$207,800,000 in damages, US$9,401,644.76 in lawyers’ fees, and US$1,362,422.88 in administrative costs, together with interest...

This Practice Note focuses on the substantive protections afforded by the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). It does not address who qualifies as an investor or investment, denial of benefits, or the ECT’s dispute settlement procedures and architecture (including arbitration). For further information on those topics, see Practice Note: Investment treaty arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty. The expressions investor, investment and Contracting Party are used here as defined in that Practice Note. Part III of the ECT sets out a suite of provisions conferring a robust level of protection on foreign investments made within the territories of host states that are Contracting Parties to the ECT. Among the most significant clauses in Part III are Articles 10 and 13. In December 2024, the Energy Charter Conference adopted a ‘Modernised ECT’, which adjusts the substantive standards and tightens the scope of investment protection, as outlined below. From 3 September 2025, that Modernised ECT will apply provisionally to Contracting Parties that have not opted out of provisional application. It will take effect...

Foreign direct investment (FDI) remains an ever more significant driver within the world economy today, and its importance continues to grow. For multinational groups, and any enterprise hoping to launch operations in another jurisdiction, a key consideration is the legal stability of that location when entering a host market. Careful investors will wish to be confident their capital is safe and shielded from improper intervention by the host state, both now and in future. Shifts in political or economic conditions can prompt state action that may, directly or indirectly, diminish an investment; in the most severe cases, the nationalisation of industries or sectors may lead to expropriation of assets (see, for example, Practice Note: Expropriation—investment treaty arbitration). In those situations, investors might possess rights and remedies arising under the contractual frameworks through which the investment was made, depending on the terms agreed. Often, however, such agreements stipulate that any claims must be pursued in the host state’s courts, or restrict the scope of relief that can be obtained. Accordingly, acknowledging...

Trade credit insurance generally protects a policyholder against unpaid receivables arising from protracted default (i.e. when an invoice is not settled after its due date), buyer insolvency, or political risk. By shifting credit exposure off the policyholder’s balance sheet, it can strengthen profit and loss accounts, and may lead to lower bad debt provisions. Types of risk insured Trade credit insurance risks are commonly divided into commercial and political risks: Commercial risk: usually the buyer’s insolvency resulting in a payment default, or the buyer’s failure to pay for the goods on the due date Political risk: the possibility that a government buyer or a country blocks completion of a transaction or does not meet its payment obligations. Examples include: regulatory or legislative freezes on payments expropriation or confiscation of goods import and export embargoes unforeseeable extraordinary measures of third countries war, hostilities, rebellion, insurrection, revolution, riot, or civil commotion abroad preventing payment or collection...