No. XI.1 - Compensation for expropriation

(a) A state may not, directly or indirectly, nationalize or expropriate foreign private property except for a purpose which is in the public interest, not discriminatory, and against fair compensation.

(b) Direct expropriation occurs when foreign private property is nationalised or otherwise directly expropriated through formal transfer of title or outright seizure. Indirect expropriation occurs where a measure or series of measures has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation, in that it substantially deprives the owner of the fundamental attributes of his property, including the right to use, enjoy and dispose of his property, without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.

(c) Fair compensation must be based on the fair market value of the expropriated assets to be determined immediately before the time at which the taking occurred or the decision to take the asset became publicly known.

(d) Absent an agreement of the parties, if a going concern is expropriated, the amount of compensation is to be determined according to the "going concern"-value, based on the discounted cash flow value of the enterprise ("discounted cash flow method", "DCF").

(e) Absent an agreement of the parties, if a non-profitable enterprise is expropriated, the amount of compensation is to be determined according to the value of the orginal investment with appropriate adjustments.

(f) Payment of compensation shall include interest and has to be made effectively, i.e. in freely convertible currency on the basis of the market rate of exchange existing for that currency on the valuation date or in any other currency accepted by the investor, and prompt, i.e. without undue delay.

1 Whether a transnational standard of expropriation exists has been debated for a long time, both in legal doctrine and within the United Nations. This is mainly due to the fact that this issue is closely linked to the sovereignty of states, so that any attempt to shape and formulate the law in this area has severe political implications. The Principle reflects a minimum consensus of the majority of legal doctrine, arbitral case law and states which has evolved over the past decades.

2 Expropriation or "wealth depreviation" means any action by a state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty. The broad language in Subsection (a) makes it clear that expropriation may take many different forms.

3 Expropriation may be direct, e.g. in the form of transfer of title or outright physical seizure, freezing or blocking of assets or funds, compulsory sales etc. However, it is generally acknowledged that states can interfere with property rights of private parties to such an extent that these rights are rendered so useless that they must be deemed to have been expropriated, even though the state does not purport to have expropriated them and the legal title to the property formally remains with the original owner.

4 Expropriation may also be indirect ("de facto"), e.g. in the form of excessive tax laws applicable only to foreign investors. The concepts of indirect expropriation raises intricate problems, because there is no generally accepted and clear definition of the concept of indirect expropriation ("regulatory expropriation") and what distinguishes it from non-compensable regulation. It may be applicable to regulatory measures aimed at protecting the environment, health and other welfare interests of society. This raises the question as to what extent a government may affect the value of property by regulation, either general in nature or by specific actions in the context of general regulations, for a legitimate public purpose without effecting a “taking” and having to compensate for this act. The expropriating effect may also be caused not by a single measure, but by a series of acts that, over time, have an expropriatory effect ("creeping expropriation").

5 In general, it is the effect of the measure or measures rather than the form which determines whether one is faced with an unlawful expropriation. The mere refusal to pay a debt under a contract concluded by the state with a foreign party is, in and of itself, not a taking as referred to by this Principle. Such issues must be dealt with under the Principle of contractual non-performance. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank offers insurance coverage against losses arising from a government’s breach or repudiation of a contract, typically concluded by a state-owned enterprise with the investor (e.g., a concession or a power purchase agreement) or from the government's non-payment of an award rendered against it. However, this insurance coverage goes beyond the protection standard afforded by the transnational law of expropriation.

6 Some of the requirements spelled out in the Principle are rather broad in nature. This applies to the public purpose requirement in Subsection (a), given that it is very easy for an expropriating state to couch any direct or indirect taking in some "public purpose". Also, states are afforded a wide margin of appreciation in determining whether a taking serves a public purpose. A taking is discriminatory, e.g., if the state has singled out the nationals of a certain country or certain countries and has applied the direct or indirect taking only to this limited group. The taking is not discriminatory if both citizens of the state and aliens are treated in the same manner.

7 It is sometimes argued that an expropriation must also be "according to due process of law" in order to be lawful but it remains unclear whether that requirement is in fact part of transnational law.

8 The standard of compensation dealt with in Subsections (c) to (f) is the most controversial aspect of the transnational Principle of expropriation. It follows from the general principle spelled out in Subsection (a) that an expropriation is lawful only if fair compensation is provided for by the state. The state's duty to compensate for the taking of private property is a result of the respect for property rights as "acquired rights". The Principle reflects the notion of "fair" ("just") compensation, meaning that the party who suffers the expropriation must receive a compensation equal to the fair market value of the expropriated property. There are a number of valuation methods that can be applied to determine the fair market value, depending on the type of expropriated asset. Methods used to value tangible assets are the book value, i.e. the value at which an asset is carried on a balance sheet, and the replacement value, i.e. the amount required to obtain an asset of the same kind as the expropriated asset. The valuation of income-producing property, e.g. a company as a going concern, can be done on the basis of the DCF method referred to in Subsection (d). That method calculates the value at a specified time of cash flows that are to be received in the future by discounting the yearly net cash flows to present value. The discount rate uses the weighted average cost of capital and includes, inter alia, cost of capital and risk components. The sum of all future cash flows, both incoming and outgoing, is the net present value, which is taken as the value or price of the cash flows in question. Pursuant to the Principle of party autonomy the parties may always agree on a different method of valuation.

9 The fact that the payment of compensation shall include interest is itself a general Principle of transnational law.

Please cite as: "Commentary to Trans-Lex Principle ,"
Arbitral Awards
Ad Hoc-Award of October 27, 1989 and June 30, 1990, Antoine Biloune (Syria) and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. (Ghana) v. Ghana Investment Centre and the Government of Ghana, YCA 1994, at 11 et seq.
Ad-Hoc-Award, Kuwait v. The American Independent Oil Company (AMINOIL), 21 ILM 976
CME Czech Republic B.V. vs. The Czech Republic, Final Award, at
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, at:, at p. 7 et seq.
France v. Venezuela: Award of the President of the Swiss Confederation in the Case of Fabiani (30th Dec. 1896), in: Moore, John Bassett, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party, Washington 1898, Vol. V, at p. 4878
Goetz et al. v. Republic Of Burundi, in: YCA XXVI (2001), at 24 et seq.
ICSID Award of June 16, 2010, Gemplus S.A. & SLP S.A. & Gempluas Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. The United Mexican States, Talsud S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Cases No. ARB/04/3 & ARB/04/4
ICSID Award, AMCO Asia Corp. et al. v. The Republic of Indonesia, YCA 1992, at 73 et seq.
ICSID Award, American Manufacturing & Trading, Inc. (USA/Zaire) v. Republic of Zaire, YCA 1997, at 60, 79 et seq.
ICSID Award, Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. The Republic of Sri Lanka, YCA 1991, at 106 et seq.
ICSID Award, Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, YCA 1994, at 51 et seq. (also published in: ICSID Rev.-FILJ 1993, at 328 et seq.; ICSID Rep. 1995, at 189 et seq.; ILM 1993, at 933 et seq.; Clunet 1994, at 121 et seq.)
ICSID: Compania del desarrollo de Santa Elena, S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, YCA XXVI (2001), 47 [also published in: 39 ILM 1317 (2000) et seq.]
Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Amoco Int‘l Finance Corp. v. Iran, 15 IRAN-U.S. C.T.R., at 189 et seq.
Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran v. Iran et al., 21 IRAN-U.S. C.T.R., at 79 et seq.
Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran, 16 IRAN-U.S. C.T.R., at 112 et seq.
Norway v. United States of America (Norwegian Shipowner‘s Claims), Permanent Court of Arbitration, available at .
Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB, Stockholm v The Republic of Latvia, Riga, available at:
Occidental Exploration and Production Company vs. The Republic of Ecuador, Final Award, London Court of International Arbitration Administered Case No. UN 3467, available at
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Norway v. United States of America (Norwegian shipowner‘s claims), Permanent court of arbitration,
Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. The United Mexican Stats, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, CASE No. ARB (AF)/00/2, May 29, 2003, at
The Government of the State of Kuwait v. The American Independent Oil Company (AMINOIL), YCA 1984, at 71 et seq.
Court Decisions
PCIJ Judgement No. 13, Case Concerning The Factory At Chorzów, at, also published in PCIJ, Series A, No. 17, Sept. 13th, 1928.
Berger, Klaus Peter, The New Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency: Globalizing The Investment Insurance Approach Towards Development, 15 Syr.J.Int'l L. & Com. 1988, at 13 et seq.
Bishop, R. Doak, International Arbitration of Petroleum Disputes: The Development of a Lex Petrolea, YCA 1998, at 1131 et seq.
Blessing, Marc, Das neue internationale Schiedsgerichtsrecht der Schweiz - Ein Fortschritt oder ein Rückschritt?, in: Böckstiegel (ed.), Die internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Schweiz (II), Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Munich 1989, at 13 et seq.
Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed., Oxford 1990.
Clagett, Bruce M., Present State of the International Law of Compensation for Expropriated Property and Repudiated State Contracts, in: The Southwestern Legal Foundation (ed.), Private Investors Abroad, Dallas 1989, at 12-1 et seq.
Crook, John R., Applicable Law In International Commercial Arbitration: The Iran-US-Claims Tribunal Experience, 83 AJIL 1989, at 278 et seq.
Dolzer, Rudolf, Indirect Expropriation of Alien Property, ICSID Rev.-FILJ 1986, at 41 et seq.
Domingo, Ortega, Rodriguez-Antolin, Zambrana, Principios de Derecho Global, Navarra, 2006
Fischer, Peter, Das Internationale Wirtschaftsrecht, 19 GYIL 1976, at 143 et seq.
Henkin, Louis/ Pugh, Richard/ Schachter, Oscar/ Smit, Hans, International Law, 2nd ed., St. Paul, Minn. 1987
Herdegen, Matthias, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Munich 1993
Hobe, Stephan, Enteignung zu Zwecken des Umweltschutzes, Iprax 02, 249
Laviec, Jean-Pierre, Protection et Promotion des Investissements, Paris 1985
M.H. Mendelson, Compensation for Expropriation: the Case-Law, in: 79 (1985) Am. J. Int‘l L. at 415 et seq.
Mann, Frederick Alexander, The Aminoil Arbitration, in: Mann (ed.), Further Studies in International Law, Oxford 1990, at 252 et seq.
Marrella, Fabrizio, La nuova lex mercatoria, Principi Unidroit ed usi di contratti des comercio internazionale, CEDAM, Tratto di dritto commerciale e di dritto publico dell‘economia, Volume 30, Padova 2003
Note, General Principles of Law in International Commercial Arbitration, 101 Harv.L.Rev. 1987/88, at 1816 et seq.
Ortscheidt, Jérôme, La réparation du dommage dans l'arbitrage commercial international, Paris 2001.
Paulsson, Jan, Arbitration without Privity, 10 ICSID Rev.-FILJ 1995, at 232 et seq.
Peter, Wolfgang, Compensation and Damages - What is different in Investment Arbitration?, in: ASA Special Series No. 34, May 2010, at page 189 et seq.
Rieger, Thomas, Grundsätze der Unternehmensenteignung in der Rechtsprechung des Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Cologne 1995
Schäfer, Martin, Entschädigungsstandard und Unternehmensbewertung bei Enteignungen im allgemeinen Völkerrecht, Heidelberg 1997
Shihata, Ibrahim, MIGA and Foreign Investment, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster 1988
Wöss, Rivera, Spiller, Dellepiane, Damages in International Arbitration Under Complex Long-Term Contracts, Oxford 2014
International Legislation
Art. 13 Energy Charter Treaty
Consolidated CETA Text - Draft - Published on 26 September 2014
The Unified Agreement for the Investment of Arab Capital in the Arab Countries
Decision taken by the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission, S/AC.26/1992/9, 06 March 1992
Resolution on the "Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources", UN-Res. 1803 (XVII) of December 14, 1962)
Miscellaneous Legislation
United Nations, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001.
World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment, reprinted in Shihata, Legal Treatment of Foreign Investment: "The World Bank Guidelines", Dordrecht, Boston, London 1993
Model Laws
Restatement of the Law Third / The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2, §§ 501-End, St. Paul. Minn. 1987, at 196 et seq.
Contract Clauses
There are currently no contract clauses.
A project of CENTRAL, University of Cologne.