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.

中文翻译：

---

国际投资法中的司法没收

本文探讨了国际法中司法征收的概念及其在投资法庭实践中的反映。它评估了已经很重要的仲裁判例体系，这些判例处理基于或与法院的作为或不作为有关的征用主张，以期发展一种连贯的司法征用理论。有人认为，由于法院在确定作为国际法律保护对象的基础所有权方面的特定作用，司法措施需要有别于其他国家机关措施的概念处理。传统的征收分析方法没有充分考虑到这一点，因此没有提供足够的工具来区分合法的司法措施和对投资者权利的不当干预。有人认为，一个自成一格因此需要采取一种方法：在所有权主要受到受质疑的司法行为影响的情况下，首先需要确定这种行为本身在国际法上是否不法，因为只有这样才能将其视为征用行为。然而，适当的分析方法最终将取决于每个案件的具体情况，而传统方法，例如唯一效果原则，在司法损害实际上来自不法立法或行政行为的情况下可能仍然适用。