• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.45-58
• /
• 2014

It is a well recognised rule in international law that the property of aliens cannot be taken. The question of whether indirect expropriation and government regulatory measures require compensation is an important issue in international investment law. Bilateral investment treaties and other investment agreements contain brief and general indirect expropriation provisions. These focus on the effect of government action and do not address the distinction between compensable and non-compensable regulatory actions. It is generally accepted that a state is not responsible for loss of property or for other economic disadvantages resulting from bona fide general taxation accepted as within the police power of states, provided it is not discriminatory. Yukos Oil Company is a Russian oil and gas company engaged in exploration, refining, and marketing activities. It is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. Yukos Oil Company has its production operations in Russia and markets its products in Europe. An international tribunal ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish investors for the losses they suffered when Russia seized the Yukos Oil Company on July 26, 2012. This has been the subject of several judicial proceedings and academic publications. This paper explores which circumstances do not lead to taxation amounting to expropriation. The author suggests that under the following circumstances, taxation would not amount to expropriation. First, taxation should be non-discriminatory. Also a lawful exercise of the taxation powers of governments would not amount to expropriation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.65-83
• /
• 2011

The purpose of Emergency Arbitrator System is to provide parties with the possibility of obtaining interim measures before constitution of the arbitral tribunal. This paper examines the Emergency Arbitrator System set forth in Article 32 and Appendix II of Arbitration Rules of Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) in comparison with Article 37 of ICDR International Arbitration Rules. This paper also provides a case study of 4 Decisions rendered by Emergency Arbitrators under the auspices of SCC in 2010. It was found that it took only 4 days on average from the date upon which the request for emergency interim measures was registered to SCC to the decision rendered by Emergency Arbitrators. The figures of average days reflect its rapidity well, one of the most preferred characteristics of arbitration. However, a case study of SCC decisions shows that only one request for interim measures was successfully granted. In other words, it was found that the requirements for granting of interim measures by emergency arbitrator were quite strictly applied. If interim measures is to be granted, it was found that the requesting party should prove to satisfy the requirements for granting of interim measures as follows: First, the requesting party has to demonstrate that it may suffer irreparable or serious harm in commercially-sensible, not in a strictly literal sense unless the interim measure is granted. Second, the party requesting interim measures has to persuade the Emergency Arbitrator that the request was of an urgent nature. Third, the requesting party is required to meet the reasonable possibility that it may succeed on the merits of the claim.