While attending Georgetown law school in 2007, I was privileged to be selected by Professor Don Wallace, Jr., to work as a research assistant to him and Professor Borzu Sabahi in their work on investment treaty arbitration. This association lasted throughout the next four years, in which I was given a thorough introduction to investor-state arbitration through multiple projects with Professor Wallace and others, including the production of a book and multiple articles, as well as through enrolling in Professor Wallace’s course on the subject.
During this time, I was invited to sit in on a doctrinal thesis defense in which Professor Wallace led the questioning of the candidate. The thesis was on damages in investment treaty arbitration, and one line of questioning Professor Wallace pursued concerned the difference in the compensation for damages between cases of lawful and unlawful expropriation. This issue had recently been raised in the award in ADC v. Hungary, where an ICSID tribunal had held that the compensation due for an unlawful expropriation was greater than that due for a lawful one, specifically for the increased value of the investment between the time of the expropriation and the time of the award.1 Professor Wallace questioned how the thesis treated compensation for unlawful expropriation and what should trigger the enhanced compensation awarded in ADC. Professor Wallace also asked if I had any additional questions on this point, as I had done work for him on the subject of valuation and compensation. I had asked whether the enhanced compensation should be the default position in all investment arbitrations dealing with an expropriation, as the claimant would always be claiming that the expropriation was in some way unlawful. Professor Wallace built upon this question to ask whether there were cases where the