Abstract

Expropriation, as an extraordinary state measure has increasingly become a common recourse during emergency situations, often raising concerns of being unwarranted and arbitrary. This research paper aims at examining one of the most contentious issues of international investment law that emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic – namely the determination of the limits of the exercise of the state’s power to expropriate private property under the guise of emergency measures. This paper sheds light on the general conceptual framework governing expropriation under international investment law. It then proceeds to examine the extent of the use of states power to requisition health care facilities during the global health emergency. Moreover, it also examines the controversies surrounding expropriations and the justification given by the government. Additionally, this study examines the treaty framework and expropriation provisions to assess whether pandemic related emergency measures may be invoked as a valid defence within the interpretive scope of investment treaties. Further, it also analysis the dimension and the controversies associated with treaty shopping and the rights of minority shareholders. It also includes an examination of jurisprudence from past crisis and an analysis of arbitral precedents to determine the doctrinal challenge in balancing investor protection and public welfare. This research paper finally concludes by examining the post Covid-19 reforms in influencing state practice and the future of investment arbitration in the light of emergency expropriation measures.

Keywords