The decision sparked an outcry over over-extended expropriation powers and led to other measures, both nationally and federally. However, the language used in contracts often gives little explicit indication of what is actually interpreted as expropriation. As a result, many investment contract arbitration tribunals have considered the definition of the limits of what is “removal” from property and the minimum requirements for “appropriate” compensation. Among the most important issues for the PFI user when assessing a country`s expropriation laws and verification procedures are the assessment of the clarity and transparency of laws and expropriation procedures with respect to their ability to compensate in a timely, timely and effective manner for their compliance with international standards and the existence of independent channels to verify or challenge expropriation decisions. In the arbitration process > arbitration of the investment contract, expropriation is carried out when a state has taken over the property of a foreign investor for whom compensation is required. 1.5 Does the government maintain an appropriate and effective compensation policy in a timely manner for expropriations, which is also in line with its international obligations? What are the explicit and well-defined limits on the expropriation capacity that the government has set? What are the independent channels to verify or challenge the exercise of this power? “Investments made by nationals or companies of a contracting party cannot be nationalized, expropriated, or subject to nationalization or expropriation measures (hereinafter referred to in the United States as a doctrine known as the “issuer domain,” which constitutes the legal basis for expropriation. The U.S. courts have accepted the doctrine as a governmental power, suggesting that it is implicit in the Fifth Amendment clause on allowances. According to this explanatory statement, the amendment`s assertion that ownership cannot be expropriated without adequate compensation implies that the property can indeed be taken. The Supreme Courts of Il., Mich (County of Wayne v. Hathcock ), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v.
Horney ), Okla., and S.C. then decided to prohibit such revenue cases in accordance with their state constitutions. There have also been federal measures, although relatively few expropriations have been carried out by this level of government. On the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision, President George W. Bush adopted an executive order stating that important areas should not be used by the federal government “to promote the economic interest of private parties in obtaining ownership or use of the property earned.” State expropriations are widespread around the world, usually accompanied by the agreement that owners should receive adequate compensation for the property they are losing. The few exceptions to the agreement on fair compensation exist mainly in communist or socialist countries, where a government can expropriate not only countries, but also domestic or foreign companies present in the country. When a government expropriates property, compensation should be timely, proportionate and effective. The right to fair compensation and due process is indisputable and is reflected in all international investment agreements.