Legal Analysis of Supporting Methods of Foreign Investors in Nationalization and Property Confiscation
Abstract
Nationalization of foreign investor assets does not serve the interests of countries because it disrupts the economic security of states and ultimately leads to a reduction in foreign investment. Governments have sought to minimize investor nationalization and property confiscation in order to attract foreign investment. In the event of expropriation of a foreign investor, governments are required to compensate the investor. The position of customary international law on how to pay compensation and methods of assessing damages includes procedures based on national law, treaties and judicial decisions or arbitration. In order to support investors, it is necessary that the right to nationalize property and expropriation of investors should be very limited. Further, in case of nationalization, the damage must be compensated in a desirable and effective manner. The foreign investor must enjoy the same rights as domestic investors and at the same time have the right to transfer their capital and profits abroad. Appropriate measures should also be taken to amend national laws in order to consolidate and guarantee the ownership of foreign investors.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
A- Books
Abed Khorasani, Mahmoud Reza, (2000) Expropriation of Aliens in International Law, Tehran, Dadgostar Publishing.
Marousi, Ali, (2012) Collection of Iran-US Claims Tribunal
Mirovisi, alireza, (2014) Foreign Investment Law in the Framework of Bilateral Investment Treaties, Tehran, Press Publications.
B-Articles
Ali Dosti Shahraki, Nasser, (2009) Compensation for Expropriation in Foreign Investment, Quarterly Journal of Legal Perspectives, Faculty of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Spring and Summer, Nos. 46, 47-94, pp. 77-94.
Ghasemi Shoozab, Ahmad Ali, (2004) A Look at the Position of Foreigners in International Law with Emphasis on International Human Rights Documents, Legal Journal of the Office of International Legal Services of the Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 31. Pages 119-169.
Ghasemi; Ali, (2003) Property confiscation of foreigners in international law, Quarterly Journal of Legal Perspectives, Faculty of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, No. 27. Pages 51-84.
Drake, William Bout, translated by Ali Ghasemi (1372), Government Contracts with Foreigners: Contemporary Developments in Compensation for Termination or Violation of Such Contracts, International Law Journal, Volume 12, fall and winter, Issues 16 and 17, pp. 397-452.
Rostamzadeh; Amin, (2012) The place of nationalize in the legal system of foreign investment and its study in Iranian law, National Conference on International Law in the Mirror of Modern Science.
C-Documents
Charter on Economic Rights and Duties of States 1974
The US Foreign Investments Act 1940, view by:
http://www.sice.oas.org/Investment/NatLeg/US/USFIAC.asp
Treaty of the European Union 1952
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Decision on Jurisdiction August 16, 2007
Foreign Investment Encouragement and Protection Law, 2002
The American Independent Oil Company v. The Government of the State of Kuwait, 1982 view by: https://www.biicl.org/files/3938_1982_kuwait_v_aminoil.pdf
Agreement on Encouragement and Mutual Support of Investment between the Governments of Iran and China, 2004
Agreement on Encouragement and Mutual Support of Investment between the Governments of Iran and France, 2003
Agreement on Encouragement and Mutual Support of Investment between the Governments of Iran and Italy,2003
The Algiers Accord and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (1981)
Agreement on Encouragement and Mutual Support of Investment between the Governments of Iran and Austria, 2004
Agreement on Encouragement and Mutual Support of Investment between the Governments of Iran and Hungary, 2019
Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco)1963
Sedco Inc. v. Iran (First Award), 9 Iran – U.S.C.T.R., p. 248. See: The Second Award in that Case in 10 Iran – U.S.C.T.R
British Petroleum v. Libya, 53 ILR
Amaco v. Iran, Iran – U.S. Claims Tribunal Reporters, Vol. 15, p. 105.
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25
Starrett Housing Corporation, Starrett Systems, Inc. and others v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Bank Markazi Iran and others IUSCT Case No. 24
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v7i10.2165
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.