Claimants are ordered 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.

BIT’s object and purpose does not change the court’s assessment

Tribunal majority could validly rely on BIT’s expropriation provision to confirm its interpretation

BIT’s ordinary meaning confirms restriction of tribunal’s competence to determination of quantum of compensation, while the context, including fork-in-the-road provision, does not support claimants’ position

Tribunal majority could validly examine BIT’s drafting history to confirm its interpretation under Article 31 VCLT

Arbitration clause should be interpreted neither extensively, nor restrictively

New expert report on Chinese law is only admissible insofar as it reinforces claimants’ legal arguments

Dissenting opinion is of limited legal relevance at set-aside stage

Background: Singaporean investors file for set-aside of award in which tribunal majority found they lacked jurisdiction to rule on existence of expropriation

Dissent flags limits to the majority’s analysis with respect to the MFN clause

For the dissenter, domestic courts are unlikely to step away from issues involving the amount of compensation in ruling on lawfulness of expropriation

Majority’s interpretation of fork-in-the-road provision would defeat the clause’s avowed purpose, Mr. Alexandrov says

Dissenter criticises the majority for having disregarded order of interpretative exercise under the VCLT

Claimant is made to bear all costs

MFN provision cannot serve, absent explicit language, to expand tribunal’s jurisdiction

Prior case law is inapposite, as none included the interplay between right to petition local courts for legality of arbitration and fork-in-the-road clause limited to issues of quantum

Availability of domestic remedies for indirect expropriations guaranteed by BIT

Fork-in-the-road does not alter the analysis, since domestic courts could refrain from ruling on amount of compensation owed

Treaty’s context further confirms that disputes over expropriation were segregated – with arbitration tribunals only being allowed to focus on quantum

Object and purpose of the BIT does not allow to ignore explicit narrowing of investor-state arbitration clause

Treaty’s ordinary meaning and drafting history support narrow reading of jurisdictional clause

Jurisdiction must be based on “clear and unambiguous consent” to arbitrate

Background: China decides that phosphate mines should yield to giant panda park

Archives