AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Edited Legal Collections Data

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Edited Legal Collections Data >> 2005 >> [2005] ELECD 226

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

"UN: Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 1974" [2005] ELECD 226; in Tully, Stephen (ed), "International Documents on Corporate Responsibility" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005)

Book Title: International Documents on Corporate Responsibility

Editor(s): Tully, Stephen

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781843768197

Section: Chapter 3

Section Title: UN: Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 1974

Number of pages: 2

Extract:

3. UN: Charter of Economic Rights and Duties
of States, 1974

Commentary: UNGA Resolution 3281 (1974) emerged in the context of the asser-
tion by newly independent developing States for an NIEO: see also, UNGA Resolutions
3201 & 3202 (1974). On corporations and the NIEO, see UNCTC, `Progress Made
Towards the Establishment of the NIEO: the Role of TNCs', UN Docs E/C.10/74 &
E/1980/40. Concomitant with permanent sovereignty over natural resources, govern-
ments enjoy the inalienable right to expropriate: Sedco Inc v NIOC (Second Interlocutory
Award) (1986) 10 Iran­US CTR 180: 198. Expropriation must result from the bona fide
exercise of law in a non-discriminatory manner for a public purpose and upon the
payment of compensation: see, for example, Amoco International Finance Corp v Iran
(1987) 15 Iran­US CTR 189: paras 140­42. As regards the quantum of compensation,
developing States, concerned by capacity to pay, espoused the view that governments
were entitled to determine an `appropriate' amount in accordance with national law
whereas developed States, concerned by unjust enrichment, argued that customary law
required compensation to be prompt, adequate and effective. Article 2(2)(c), which
reflects the Calvo doctrine ­ that foreign investors ought to settle their disputes in the
national courts of host States ­ was accordingly rejected by the developed States.
Expropriatory measures will be scrutinised for their substance and effect rather than
their form and governmental intent: Tippetts v TAMS-ATTA (1985) 6 Iran-US CTR 219:
225. On the phenomena ...


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2005/226.html