{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00859106529209622, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001718213058419244, 'mean_word_length': 5.581920903954802, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Deference and Indirect Expropriation Analysis in International Investment Law: Observations on Current Approaches and Frameworks for Future Analysis

This article examines whether standards of review analysis accurately reflects or is helpful to understanding current approaches to deference by tribunals in the indirect expropriation enquiry. Section II provides doctrinal background by developing a model of the indirect expropriation enquiry, and illustrates three examples of the standards of review school of thought. Section III identifies the practical utility of standards of review theories for States and investors party to arbitral proceedings, and poses a number of questions to be considered in Section IV. Section IV draws upon 18 awards and returns to the questions posed in Section III to examine how jurisprudential analysis can guide the reformulation of notions of deference applicable to the indirect expropriation enquiry. In so doing, it seeks to offer practical solutions to States and investors party to arbitral proceedings. Section V concludes with a brief statement of how this article contributes to current scholarship on these issues.