Claimants are directed to pay costs

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Tribunal majority declines to find jurisdiction based on unclean hands or estoppel doctrines

Tribunal majority rejects claimants’ argument that NAFTA’s substantive provisions remained applicable due to a choice-of-law provision for legacy claims under USMCA

Negotiation history mostly indicates USA’s internal views rather than position of all USMCA parties, and in any event supports USA’s position

Restrictive Interpretation is consistent with USMCA’s object and purpose and other obligations under international law

Good faith cannot be used to contradict treaty’s ordinary meaning

Claimants’ reliance on footnotes and other provisions is unfounded, according to majority

Footnotes and general structure of USMCA confirms Restrictive Interpretation

Ordinary meaning indicates that USMCA parties only agreed to extend NAFTA’s arbitration provisions, and not its substantive provisions, during NAFTA-USMCA transition period

Tribunal sees no presumption either in favor or against jurisdiction

Background: Revocation of pipeline permit leads to NAFTA legacy claim under USMCA

USA’s lack of consideration for indigenous’ rights affected decision on costs

Tribunal saw no evidence of denial of justice or lack of due process

Lack of consideration for First Nations’ interests was regrettable, but did not amount to breach of MST

Potential breach of obligation assumed under separate international agreement does not establish breach of MST

Claim that alleged investment should not have been subjected to challenged measure did not fall within scope of NT or MFN standards

Partial expropriation does not generally qualify as breach of Article 1110 of NAFTA

Ambiguous legislation cannot ground legitimate expectations for the purpose of expropriation claim

Additional elements provided by claimants, even if considered in aggregate, were insufficient to meet restrictive definition of investment under NAFTA

Escrow payments linked to cigarette sales were not a protected investment under Article 1139 of NAFTA

Inventory loan did not constitute an investment

Arbitrators found no evidence of indigenous customary practice proving collective transboundary enterprise

Tribunal found no jurisdiction under NAFTA in relation to measures that allegedly affected Canadian plant

Tribunal relied on VCLT rules of interpretation, but stressed limited role of extra-NAFTA rules of international law

Tribunal avoided formalistic approach to admissibility of amended claims, privileging judicial economy

Archives