Indirect expropriation remains a contentious and challenging issue in both theory and practice. From the late 20th century into the 21st, the central conflict in international investment law lies between sovereignty and the protection of private property. The deepening of economic and trade globalization has given rise to a renewed form of “Calvoism,” placing foreign investors’ interests in host states under increasingly complex circumstances. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal was the first case to spur international research on indirect expropriation. The debate over whether losses to foreign investors should be borne by governments or private parties established an efficient paradigm for resolution and offers instructive insights on attributing responsibility. However, the paradigm for addressing indirect expropriation remains largely monolithic. In the current era of faltering globalization, indirect expropriation requires fresh reassessment.
Han et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: