Judicial Expropriation in International Investment Law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9930867 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vid Prislan (0000-0002-2271-7921, Center for International Environmental Law, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 70 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 165-195 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International and Comparative Law Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-5893 • E-ISSN: 1471-6895 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0020589320000445 |
| OpenAlex | W3120463981 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 2 |
This article examines the notion of judicial takings in international law and its reflection in the practice of investment tribunals. It takes stock of the already significant body of arbitral jurisprudence dealing with expropriation claims grounded in, or relating to, the acts or omissions of courts, with a view to developing a coherent theory of judicial expropriations. It is suggested that, due to the courts’ specific role in the determination of the underlying proprietary rights that are the very object of international legal protection, judicial measures warrant different conceptual treatment from measures by other State organs. Traditional approaches to expropriation analysis do not take this sufficiently into account and therefore do not provide adequate tools for distinguishing legitimate judicial measures from undue interferences with investors’ rights. It is argued that a sui generis approach is hence needed: where proprietary rights are primarily affected by the impugned judicial action, it is first necessary to determine whether such action is itself wrongful under international law, for only then can it be treated as an act of expropriation. However, the proper analytical approach will ultimately depend on the circumstances of each case and traditional approaches, such as the sole effects doctrine, may still be appropriate where the judicial injury actually flows from wrongful legislative or executive conduct
Business · Common law · Doctrine · Economics · Expropriation · Judicial discretion · Judicial opinion · Judicial review · Jurisprudence · Law and economics · Legislature · Political science · Warrant · Corporate Law and Human Rights · International Arbitration and Investment Law · International Law and Human Rights · Law
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |