Abstract

The global threat posed by climate change calls for increased governmental regulation in various fields of economic activity. New regulations, especially in the carbon-intensive industries, will likely interfere with economic interests and acquired rights of foreign investors. One of the main questions that investment treaty tribunals will have to answer in this context is whether, and to what extent, such regulations should be accompanied by compensation.Investment treaty jurisprudence has yet to come up with comprehensive criteria for distinguishing compensable regulatory expropriation from non-compensable exercise of regulatory powers. This uncertainty is particularly evident from recent cases dealing with issues, such as plain packaging for tobacco, nuclear energy phase-out and solar energy tariffs. The absence of specific criteria causes concern among States, investors and other stakeholders, and contributes to the ongoing backlash against the investor–State dispute settlement system.This article suggests drawing the borderline between non-compensable regulation and regulatory expropriation in reference to inherent limits of property rights that underlie foreign investments. Although the State owes compensation to an investor whose property rights are dispossessed by an increased regulation, it is uncontroversial that property rights are themselves limited by the rights of others. The precise limits change over time, in light of new circumstances and available scientific evidence. Prudent investors, especially those active in hazardous industries, assume the risk of such changes as part of their business risk. A regulation that does no more than to clarify the inherent limits of the investor’s rights in light of newly emerging circumstances does not constitute an interference with such rights and does not therefore qualify as expropriation. Under this approach, bona fide regulations that aim to tackle the emerging threats posed by climate change do not engender a right to compensation.

中文翻译：

---

不可补偿的法规与法规征收：气候变化法规是否应予补偿？

摘要

气候变化带来的全球威胁要求在经济活动的各个领域加强政府监管。新法规，特别是在碳密集型行业中，可能会干扰经济利益和外国投资者的获得权利。在这种情况下，投资条约法庭必须回答的主要问题之一是，此类法规是否应当以及在何种程度上应附有赔偿。投资条约法理学还没有提出区分可补偿性监管征收与非征收性的全面标准。 -有偿行使监管权力。这种不确定性在处理诸如烟草无装饰包装，核能淘汰和太阳能关税等问题的最新案例中尤为明显。缺乏特定标准会引起国家，投资者和其他利益相关者的关注，并加剧了对投资者与国家之间的争端解决系统的强烈反对。构成外国投资基础的财产权。尽管国家向其财产权因法规增加而被剥夺的投资者应得赔偿，但财产权本身受他人权利的限制是毫无争议的。精确的限制会随着时间的推移而变化，这取决于新的情况和现有的科学证据。谨慎的投资者，尤其是从事危险行业的投资者，会承担此类变化的风险，并将其作为其业务风险的一部分。仅仅根据新出现的情况澄清投资者权利的固有限制的法规并不构成对此类权利的干预，因此不构成剥夺。在这种方法下，旨在应对气候变化带来的新威胁的善意法规不会产生赔偿权。