Study On Indirect Expropriation About Determination And Compensation In International Investment Law

The core issues about indirect expropriation in International Investments are determination and compensation.To expound the two basic theories of indirect expropriation,this paper is in the perspective of the first case,The Claimants are Ping An Life Insurance Company of China,Limited and to Ping An Insurance(Group)of China,Limited(Named for"Ping An" In the following article),the Respondent is the Kingdom of Belgium("Belgium")("Ping An-Belgium"),submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID).At the same time,the paper uses the two basic theories to comment on the case,"Ping An-Belgium".Cases and theories are mutual support to write a comprehensive and perfect paper as expected.Paper starting with the theory of indirect expropriation that the case " Ping An-Belgium " has reflected,makes the basic theory of indirect expropriation as the theoretical basis of " Ping An " for claiming.In order to prevent China as the host country from the risk of being charged indirect expropriation or Chinese overseas investment being expropriated by the indirect way(ways)and ensure China have power enough to solution these problems about indirect expropriation,then proposes the theories of indirect expropriation can protect Chinese rights,and uses basic theories of indirect expropriation rebuttal to the defense of the Belgium Government.The Basic Theory involved mainly include:Starting as the concept and conditions of direct expropriation or nationalization,from the concept and conditions of indirect expropriation to deep into the differences between direct expropriation and indirect expropriation,to show the nature of the indirect expropriation issues at the end.The core parts of the paper are based on two core issues of indirect expropriation,that is,determination standard and compensation standard on the case" Ping An-Belgium ".Determination of indirect expropriation reflected "Ping An" claims is,the effect and purpose doctrine in the form of reasonable proportion.The Belgian government' intervention prompted property of foreign investor to be loss,and it's unreasonable about proportion between intervention and purpose that being to solve the economical crisis,at the same time,the Belgian government is fail to show strongly its intervention is necessary.therefore,I draw the conclusions that the case is involving indirect expropriation.As regards the compensation standards,after interpreting the compensation standards about indirect expropriation,my conclusions about compensation standard of indirect expropriation reflected "Ping An" claimed is Hull Standard,compensate paid by adequately,timely and effectively,the Belgian government denied the fact of expropriation and refused to compensate.At the end of paper,it provides some points about how to prevent China from being involved by risk is similar with indirect expropriation in the case"Ping An-Belgium",These points include that some indirect expropriation proposal involved in the national legislation and bilateral investment treaties,and then writer(I'm not sure whether are my suggestions appropriate and I think it's impossible that they are outlandish,but I decide to say something)suggests what should "Ping An" do at next step.According to the sequence of from case to case,I would like to start with finding problems,then explain problems,at last,solve problems(determination and compensation about indirect expropriation),in accordance with the regulation that theories guide practice and practice examines theories,uses cases to apply theories,in turn uses theories to practice cases,so that this paper tries to make perfect for domestic legislation and BITs as far as possible.