間接徵收並須予以補償之概念，與地主國政府採取行政措施而無需補償之概念，兩者之間不易明確劃分。雖然若干新近締結之自由貿易協定對徵收之態樣予以分類，其中一類涵括相當於徵收之措施，然而在何種情況之下地主國所採取之行政措施屬於相當於徵收之措施，卻無任一項協定提供蛛絲馬跡以資遵循。由此可見，相當於徵收之措施可能包括地主國政府基於合法目的所採取之任何措施，而屬於地主國警察權之範疇。警察權例外之所以亟具爭議性之原因，主要在於國際法或國內法皆未提供普遍性及廣為接受之立論基礎，藉以釐清警察權之本質或範圍。截至目前為止，最近兩項自由貿易協定—美國分別與新加坡及智利所簽署之自由貿易協定—其中規定明確之指導方針以認定地主國行使行政權得否被視為應予補償之徵收。不過相關爭議仍懸而未決，未來發生新案件與問題時可能仍將繼續爭論不休。

The line of demarcation between the concept of indirect expropriation requiring compensation and governmental regulatory measures not requiring compenstion is difficult to draw. Several recent free trade agreements classify expropriation to include measures which have similar effects; none, however, provides a clue as to when a regulatory measure is “tantamount (or equivalent) to expropriation.” A measure “tantamount (or equivalent) to expropriation”, then, could be any government measure adopted for a legitimate purpose as part of the host state’s plice powers. The most controversial issue surrounding the police power exception arises from the fact that neigher international nordomestic law offers a comprehensive and widely accepted grounding for identifying its naure or scope. To date, two recent free trade agreements, the U.S.-Singapore and the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreements, provide specific guidance on how to determine whether or not the exercise of regulatory powers by a host country is to be regarded as a compensable expropriation. However, the debate has yet to be settled and is likely to continue as new cases and questions arise.