Is Argentina allowed to seize YPF?

Argentina's expropriation of its former state oil company attracted international condemnation - but

Argentina's expropriation of 51 per cent of the shares of YPF, the formerly state-owned oil company, has generated almost universal criticism.  Indeed, Antonio Brufau, Repsol’s executive chairman, has labelled Argentina’s action as “manifestly illegal and gravely discriminatory”, and has emphasised Repsol’s intention to use international arbitration to gain proper compensation if it is not freely offered by Argentina. Such language is undoubtedly useful for Repsol as a means of generating support for its position, but an examination of precisely what international law says about expropriation is illuminating as to the potential losses that Repsol now faces.

Whether or not Argentina’s action violates international law is an important question for Repsol, as the standard of compensation differs for legal and illegal expropriations. Consequently, if Repsol can establish that Argentina has violated international law it potentially stands to gain considerably greater compensation than if the law has been observed.

It is important to note, however, that expropriations are not inherently illegal under international law. The ability to take property from private entities is simply one of the benefits of being a state. The important question, then, is whether Argentina has adhered to the applicable standards in performing the expropriation. Currently available information suggests that it has.

Firstly, an expropriation must be undertaken for a public purpose. Argentina’s expressed goal of regaining national energy self-sufficiency and ensuring the viability of an important industry clearly satisfies this requirement, and there is as yet no indication of any alternative motive.

Secondly, the expropriation must be non-discriminatory. If, for example, the Argentine government had taken Repsol’s shares in YPF and redistributed them to a private Argentine entity, Repsol may have been able to argue discrimination. Such an action would have indicated that Repsol’s foreign nationality was a motivating factor in the expropriation. However, the expropriated shares are being retained in government hands, YPF’s remaining shareholders include other foreign entities, and Argentina has offered plausible arguments as to why YPF’s performance was insufficient for the needs of the country. Absent new evidence, then, Repsol will have difficulty substantiating its allegation that the expropriation is "discriminatory".

Thirdly, the expropriation must be performed in accordance with due process of law. Argentina is undertaking the expropriation through the passage of legislation and there has been no accusation that Repsol will be deprived of any legal rights it has to challenge the expropriation in Argentine courts. Consequently, there is no current evidence that Argentina is violating this requirement.

Finally, an appropriate level of compensation must be paid for any expropriated property. This is the point on which the greatest uncertainty remains, as the Argentine government has not yet stated how much compensation it intends to pay to Repsol. Moreover, there are clear political pressures within Argentina to minimise the amount of compensation that Repsol receives. If Argentina bows to these pressures, and offers Repsol an amount indefensible as an estimate of the market value of the company, it will likely be found to have acted illegally. However, the efforts that have so far been made by Argentina’s representatives to link lowered compensation payments to such things as potential hidden debts and environmental liabilities indicates that Argentina is well aware of this issue, and is unlikely to propose an amount of compensation that is not at least facially plausible as a market valuation of the expropriated shares.

Of course, while it is important for Argentina that its actions be found to be legal, simple legality will not protect it from all the potential negative consequences of such a prominent expropriation. Perceptions matter in attracting foreign investment, and Argentina will need significant foreign investment if it is to achieve its goal of a return to energy self-sufficiency. For this reason, as attractive as it may be to the Argentine government to minimise the compensation it offers to Repsol, this is unlikely to be in Argentina’s long-term best interest. A single act of expropriation is unlikely to deter foreign investors, even when it is as large as Argentina’s expropriation of YPF. However, a perception that the Argentine government will not treat foreign investors fairly will deter them, and any indication that the government is more interested in minimizing the compensation it pays to Repsol than in fixing a fair price for Repsol’s shares in YPF will have precisely that effect. In the long term, such a valuation may well cost Argentina more money than it saves.

The second part of this post can now be found here.

View at sunset of the port next to the gas plant of YPF in Buenos Aires. Photograph: Getty Images

Tony Cole is a senior lecturer at Brunel Law School

Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May’s stage-managed election campaign keeps the public at bay

Jeremy Corbyn’s approach may be chaotic, but at least it’s more authentic.

The worst part about running an election campaign for a politician? Having to meet the general public. Those ordinary folk can be a tricky lot, with their lack of regard for being on-message, and their pesky real-life concerns.

But it looks like Theresa May has decided to avoid this inconvenience altogether during this snap general election campaign, as it turns out her visit to Leeds last night was so stage-managed that she barely had to face the public.

Accusations have been whizzing around online that at a campaign event at the Shine building in Leeds, the Prime Minister spoke to a room full of guests invited by the party, rather than local people or people who work in the building’s office space.

The Telegraph’s Chris Hope tweeted a picture of the room in which May was addressing her audience yesterday evening a little before 7pm. He pointed out that, being in Leeds, she was in “Labour territory”:

But a few locals who spied this picture online claimed that the audience did not look like who you’d expect to see congregated at Shine – a grade II-listed Victorian school that has been renovated into a community project housing office space and meeting rooms.

“Ask why she didn’t meet any of the people at the business who work in that beautiful building. Everyone there was an invite-only Tory,” tweeted Rik Kendell, a Leeds-based developer and designer who says he works in the Shine building. “She didn’t arrive until we’d all left for the day. Everyone in the building past 6pm was invite-only . . . They seemed to seek out the most clinical corner for their PR photos. Such a beautiful building to work in.”

Other tweeters also found the snapshot jarring:

Shine’s founders have pointed out that they didn’t host or invite Theresa May – rather the party hired out the space for a private event: “All visitors pay for meeting space in Shine and we do not seek out, bid for, or otherwise host any political parties,” wrote managing director Dawn O'Keefe. The guestlist was not down to Shine, but to the Tory party.

The audience consisted of journalists and around 150 Tory activists, according to the Guardian. This was instead of employees from the 16 offices housed in the building. I have asked the Conservative Party for clarification of who was in the audience and whether it was invite-only and am awaiting its response.

Jeremy Corbyn accused May of “hiding from the public”, and local Labour MP Richard Burgon commented that, “like a medieval monarch, she simply briefly relocated her travelling court of admirers to town and then moved on without so much as a nod to the people she considers to be her lowly subjects”.

But it doesn’t look like the Tories’ painstaking stage-management is a fool-proof plan. Having uniform audiences of the party faithful on the campaign trail seems to be confusing the Prime Minister somewhat. During a visit to a (rather sparsely populated) factory in Clay Cross, Derbyshire, yesterday, she appeared to forget where exactly on the campaign trail she was:

The management of Corbyn’s campaign has also resulted in gaffes – but for opposite reasons. A slightly more chaotic approach has led to him facing the wrong way, with his back to the cameras.

Corbyn’s blunder is born out of his instinct to address the crowd rather than the cameras – May’s problem is the other way round. Both, however, seem far more comfortable talking to the party faithful, even if they are venturing out of safe seat territory.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496