The case of the state’s latest triple-pronged attack on TNK-BP serves as an important reminder that Russia’s investment environment remains about as stable and law-abiding as it was during the height of the Yukos theft – appeals in local courts against the charges of industrial espionage or regular procedural compliance with Oleg Mitvol’s environmental watchdog can not be counted upon to be fair and impartial. However what is happening to BP is not a uniquely Russian phenomenon, but is rather a frequent problem for investors working in emerging markets – the state often sees a foreign-owned asset or property that it desires (specifically benefiting certain officials), and bends the rules in order to obtain it, or secure a larger participation. It is what happens when a country lacks rule of law. My law firm has worked for many years with individuals, private businesses, and corporations doing business in some of the most challenging markets, and we have seen that all too often many of these groups limit their choice of legal options to lengthy and expensive arbitration forums when confronted with an expropriatory state. However, specifically in Latin America, there are many possible avenues to pursue under international law, including human rights and constitutional legal protections to protect against the seizure of property, especially in politically sensitive cases. I was recently in contact with my colleage Dr. Douglass Cassel, a law professor at Notre Dame, who prepared a short briefing note on the potential remedies for expropriations under the Inter-American human rights system. I share Doug’s paper below for those who may find it of interest.