expropriationsとは 意味・読み方・使い方

Bilateral investment agreements had traditionally been seen as “investment protection agreements,” designed to protect investors from possible expropriations of investment properties and other risks such as arbitrary operation of law by investment recipient countries, as the agreements stipulate the following as all or part of their main contents: National Treatment (NT) and Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Treatment after investment is made; expropriations and compensation; freedom of remittance; resolution of conflicts between the signatory countries; resolution of conflicts between signatory countries and investors; and other aspects.例文帳に追加

二国間投資協定は、従来、投資受入国による投資財産の収用や、その法律の恣意的な運用等のリスクから投資家を保護するため、投資後の内国民待遇・最恵国待遇、収用と補償、送金の自由、締約国間の紛争処理、締約国と投資家の紛争処理又はその一部等を主要な内容とする「投資保護協定」として位置づけられてきた。 - 経済産業省

In reaction to this arbitral award, the recent U.S.A.- Australia FTA and U.S.A.-Chile FTA provide that indirect expropriations require a case-by-case inquiry, that considers three factors: (i) the fact that an action or series of actions by a party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred, (ii) the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations and (iii) the character of the government action. Except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory regulatory actions by a party that are designed and applied to achieve legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriations.例文帳に追加

この仲裁判断を受けて、近年の米豪FTA、米チリFTA などでは、間接収用について、ケースバイケースの検討が必要であり、検討にあたっては特に①締約国の行為が投資に不利な経済的効果を与えたとしても、それのみで間接収用を構成しないこと、②締約国の行為が投資の明確で正当な期待を妨げた範囲、③締約国の行為の性質、の３つの要素を考慮すること、公衆衛生、安全、環境等公共の福祉を守る目的で立案された無差別の規制措置であれば、稀な例外を除いて間接収用に該当しない旨を規定している。 - 経済産業省