Jurisdiction – Investment – Indirect investment – Shares – Contract – Concession – Whether an indirect investment in shares constituted a protected investment – Whether lease agreements entered into by a local subsidiary qualified as protected contractual rights or concessions

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Indirect investment – Made in the territory – Remoteness – Whether the investor made an investment in the State’s territory by acquiring shares in an investment that had previously been made – Whether the investor was not protected because it was not the ultimate beneficiary of the investment – Whether the investor was too remote from the original investment

Admissibility – Forum shopping – Parallel proceeding – Municipal law – Whether the claims were inadmissible because the investor had engaged in forum shopping – Whether the claims were inadmissible because the impugned acts were still being litigated in the domestic courts

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – De facto State organ – Whether an airport operator was a State organ under customary international law

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – Whether an airport operator exercised governmental authority regarding the impugned termination of lease agreements

Evidence – Adverse inferences – Document production – Attribution – Whether adverse inferences on the attribution of conduct should be drawn from the State’s refusal to comply with the tribunal’s document production orders

Fair and equitable treatment – Contract – Bad faith – Evidence – Municipal law – Whether lease agreements were terminated in bad faith – Whether judicial findings of abuse of right under municipal law were relevant to the standard of fair and equitable treatment

Expropriation – Contract – Whether the termination of lease agreements expropriated the investment without compensation

Remedies – Compensation – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 31(1) – Full reparation – Lost profits – One-time expenses – Valuation date – Discounted cash flow – Whether full reparation included loss of profits – Whether there was any material difference between operating costs and lost profits – Whether the investor was entitled to recover one-time expenses arising from termination of the lease agreements – Whether the investor had established a realistic scenario of lost profits but for the termination of the lease agreements – Whether discounted cash flow was the best method to determine the lost profits of an income-producing investment – Whether subsequent reduction of shareholding was relevant to the assessment of compensation

Costs – UNCITRAL Rules, Article 40(1) – Costs follow the event – Circumstances of the case – Whether the circumstances allowed the tribunal to depart from the principle that costs should follow the event

Procedure – Challenge to arbitrator – ICSID Convention, Article 57 – ICSID Convention, Article 14 – Independence – Impartiality – Issue conflict – Whether previous administrative or political appointments in government led to manifest lack of qualifications to exercise independent judgment – Whether an arbitrator’s previous advocacy on behalf of a State created the risk of an issue conflict

Admissibility – Attribution – Contract – Whether alleged breaches of a contract entered into by an investor’s subsidiary and a State-owned entity were attributable to the State – Whether the alleged breaches of contract should be determined on the merits of the alleged breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment

Admissibility – Procedure – Incidental or additional claim – Whether a claim was untimely if raised for the first time in the hearing on jurisdiction and merits – Whether there was sufficient opportunity for both parties to respond to the claim

Expropriation – Interpretation – Measures – Particular undertaking – Whether the term “measures” required an expropriation to consist of a formal exercise of government powers – Whether notion of a particular undertaking included other provisions of a BIT or was limited to external agreements entered into by the State

Expropriation – Prompt compensation – Interpretation – Good faith – VCLT, Article 31(1) – Manifestly absurd or unreasonable – VCLT, Article 32(b) – Municipal law – Whether the payment of prompt compensation required the State to specify a certain figure constituting the amount of compensation on the date of expropriation – Whether that interpretation contravened the principle of good faith interpretation – Whether that interpretation led to a manifestly absurd or unreasonable result – Whether a tribunal had to examine whether municipal law implemented an expropriation procedure in accordance with the BIT

Expropriation – De facto expropriation – Whether acquiring de facto control of an investment with the aim of ultimately carrying out an expropriation could amount to an expropriation

Expropriation – Attribution – Non-State actors – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 11 – Whether the physical takeover of a plant by former workers, union officials and sympathetic politicians was under the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, the State – Whether causality between a presidential announcement and the physical takeover was sufficient to attribute the conduct of non-State actors – Whether the subsequent adoption of the conduct of non-State actors by a State-owned entity vested with governmental authority was attributable to the State

Expropriation – Attribution – State-owned entity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Whether the presence of a State-owned entity in the investor’s abandoned plant was merely in a caretaker capacity for reasons of public safety – Whether the State-owned entity was vested with governmental authority to nationalise the plant

Procedure – Judicial economy – Remedies – Whether a tribunal had to make a finding on an alleged breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment when it would not have altered the amount of compensation to which the investor was entitled

Fair and equitable treatment – Legitimate expectation – Legal stability – Contract – Attribution – State-owned entity – Whether a legitimate expectation of the contractual performance of a State-owned entity at a certain price can be formed in the absence of a specific commitment from the State guaranteeing such performance or price – Whether any breach of contract had been established – Whether it was necessary to address the issue of attribution in the absence of contractual breach

Full protection and security – Legal stability – Contract – State-owned entity – Whether the State had an obligation to protect an investor from alleged contractual breaches by a State-owned entity

Remedies – Compensation – Expropriation – Quantum – Fair market value – Discounted cash flow – Country risk premium – Evidence – Whether a finding of unlawfulness was relevant to the standard of compensation for expropriation – Whether the value of the investment was higher on the date of expropriation or the date of award – Whether fair market value could be determined using the method of discounted cash flow – Whether the discount rate applied to future cash flows should include the risk of expropriation as part of the country risk premium – Whether the evidence presented by the parties’ experts determined the correct variables of future cash flows – Whether a reduction in future profits should be made to account for the investment’s dependence on the investor’s marketing and distribution networks – Whether the investor was entitled to compensation for historical losses arising from increases in the price of inputs

Remedies – Compensation – Interest – Compound interest – Whether interest should be calculated on a simple basis because compound interest was prohibited under municipal law – Whether compound interest would ensure full reparation under international law for the time value of the investor’s losses

Annulment – Procedure – Seat – ICSID Convention, Article 62 – Whether annulment proceedings may be conducted in a place different from the seat of ICSID absent agreement of parties

Annulment – Procedure – Stay of enforcement – Whether a stay of enforcement of the award should be lifted because the applicant for annulment failed to pay an advance on costs

Annulment – Procedure – Suspension of proceedings – Whether annulment proceedings should be suspended because the applicant for annulment failed to pay an advance on costs

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Foreign control – Substantial interest – Whether the investors satisfied the conditions of nationality under the BIT – Whether nationals of the home State had a substantial interest in the investors – Whether a substantial interest needed to be a controlling or a majority interest

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Denial of benefits – Requirement to consult – Whether the host State promptly consulted the home State to seek a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter – Whether exercising a denial-of-benefits clause amounted to withdrawing unilaterally a previously given consent – Whether the denial-of-benefits clause could be exercised after the investment claim had been filed

Jurisdiction – Investment – Indirect investment – Burden of proof – Whether an investor proved its alleged beneficial interest in an investment through a corporate vehicle

Jurisdiction – Consent – Contract claims – Whether the claim was purely contractual – Whether the investors submitted a treaty claim

Jurisdiction – Consent – Exclusions and reservations – Taxation measures – Whether a carve-out clause for taxation barred the investors’ claims of expropriation

Jurisdiction – Investment – Legality – Corruption – Public policy – Burden of proof – Whether the State discharged its burden of proof in establishing that the investment was illegal and made in corrupt circumstances

Admissibility – Abuse of process – Whether resorting to four parallel arbitrations with the same factual matrix, same witnesses and many identical claims was abusive – Whether the nature of those parallel claims was identical – Whether pursuit of the same claim before different investment tribunals should be allowed – Whether an investor should make an election to resolve overlapping claims in parallel proceedings

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – Contract – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 11 – Whether the State was liable for contractual obligations undertaken by two State entities

Expropriation – Compensation – Legal stability – Tax exemption – Whether a licence granting taxation privileges constituted a protected investment – Whether the revocation of a licence constituted an expropriation – Whether the investors had the right to retain the taxation privileges beyond the initial period of the licence

Full protection and security – Due diligence – Civil unrest – Whether the State took reasonable precautionary, preventive and remedial measures to protect the physical security of a pipeline network from sabotage

Procedure – Res judicata – Contract – Privity of interest – Force majeure – Whether the factual findings on the sabotage of a pipeline network in a parallel commercial arbitration were binding on the tribunal – Whether the legal findings on contractual termination in a parallel commercial arbitration were binding on the tribunal

Expropriation – Unlawful expropriation – Contract – Whether State entities wrongfully terminated a contract under the proper law – Whether unlawful termination of a contract was tantamount to an unlawful expropriation

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – State-owned entity – ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) – Interpretation – Broches test – ILC Articles on State Responsibility – Whether a State-owned entity operating as an ordinary commercial entity was “a national of another Contracting State” under Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention – Whether the application of the Broches test requires a context-specific analysis of the commercial functions of the investment

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Legality – Interpretation – Municipal law – Whether an investor needed to register its investment under municipal law as a condition precedent for treaty protection

Jurisdiction – Expropriation – Interpretation – Dispute – Consent – Whether the State had consented to ICSID arbitration in respect not only of the quantum of expropriation claims but also liability for expropriation

Jurisdiction – Most-favoured-nation treatment – Interpretation – Dispute resolution – Territory – Whether the standard of most-favoured-nation treatment in the State’s territory allowed an investor to rely on dispute resolution provisions contained in another BIT of the State

Jurisdiction – Investment – Interpretation – ICSID Convention, Article 25 – Salini test – Whether the definition of investment in a BIT exceeded what is permissible under the ICSID Convention – Whether a construction contract met the requirements of the Salini test

Jurisdiction – Contract – Expropriation – Whether the involvement of military forces distinguished the alleged expropriation from a purely contractual claim

Procedure – Preliminary objections – Time limits – Special circumstances – ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41 – ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 26(3) – Whether there were special circumstances for the State’s new evidence of alleged corruption to be considered as preliminary objections after the hearing

Procedure – Corruption – Waiver – Laches – Acquiescence – Whether the doctrine of laches barred the State’s new evidence of corruption – Whether the State had waived or acquiesced to the alleged instances of corruption

Evidence – Corruption – Standard of proof – Indirect evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Whether the standard of proof for alleged corruption allowed for a tribunal to consider indirect or circumstantial evidence

Evidence – Corruption – Burden of proof – Whether the burden of proof shifted once prima facie evidence of corruption had been established

Evidence – Corruption – Causation – Whether a party alleging corruption had to show that a benefit would not have been obtained but for the corrupt act – Whether an alleged act of corruption must concern foundational rights to impact upon a tribunal’s jurisdiction

Evidence – Authenticity – Adverse inference – Whether a party’s refusal to allow the testing of a document’s authenticity invited an adverse inference of fabrication

Jurisdiction – Investment – Corruption – Attribution – Whether allegedly corrupt acts prior to the establishment of the investment were proved – Whether proven acts of corruption were attributable to the investor

Jurisdiction – Investment – Legality – Interpretation – Whether the BIT imposed a strict legality or formal admission requirement – Whether the retroactive invalidation of a contract was relevant to the legality of the investment

Admissibility – Corruption – Causation – Whether improper conduct in the performance of the investment was proved – Whether proven acts of corruption were causally linked to any right or benefit obtained by the investor – Whether proven acts of corruption were attributable to the investor

Admissibility – Contract – Whether the existence of a contract under municipal law was a matter of admissibility or merits

State responsibility – Attribution – Territorial unit – Government officials – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 7 – Whether the conduct of provincial authorities and their officials was attributable to the State

State responsibility – Attribution – Autonomous institution – Governmental authority – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Whether the conduct of an autonomous development agency was an exercise of governmental authority – Whether an autonomous entity was directed or controlled by the State

Fair and equitable treatment – Interpretation – Autonomous standard – Legitimate expectation – Whether the BIT referenced the minimum standard under customary international law or created an autonomous standard of treatment – Whether the standard protected the legitimate expectation of an investor

Fair and equitable treatment – Legitimate expectation – Contract – Regulatory framework – Specific assurance – Whether a contract gave rise to a legitimate expectation – Whether the regulatory framework gave rise to a legitimate expectation – Whether specific assurances of government officials gave rise to a legitimate expectation – Whether the investor’s legitimate expectation was breached by denying its application for a mining lease – Whether the State had executed a plan to take over the investment – Whether there were nevertheless legitimate reasons for the State to deny the application for a mining lease – Whether the application for a mining lease was denied on the basis of routine regulatory requirements

Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Substantial deprivation – Regulatory power – Whether the measure resulted in substantial deprivation of value or rendered useless an investor’s rights – Whether the measure was a legitimate exercise of regulatory power – Whether the State complied with the criteria for lawful expropriation

Non-impairment – Interpretation – Whether the State’s obligation not to impair investments was qualified by the words “subject to its laws” – Whether the absence of usual qualifications meant that any impairing measures were in breach of the standard – Whether the State’s measures were arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable

Counterclaim – Jurisdiction – Consent – Municipal law – Standing – Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear counterclaims – Whether consent to counterclaims was limited to treaty law or extended to contract and public law – Whether the State had standing to arbitrate the rights and obligations entered into by a territorial unit and its agencies under municipal law

Counterclaim – Legality – Interpretation – Whether a legality requirement in a treaty definition gave rise to any obligation of the investor with corresponding liability

Procedure – Bifurcation – Jurisdiction – Whether the State’s objections to jurisdiction could be assessed in an initial phase before the merits

Procedure – Provisional measures – Urgent application – ICSID Convention, Article 47 – ICSID Arbitration Rule 39 – Whether the State should be ordered to refrain from interrogating an investor pending the tribunal’s determination of an application for provisional measures

Procedure – Provisional measures – Criminal investigation – ICSID Convention, Article 47 – ICSID Arbitration Rule 39 – Evidence – Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to grant provisional measures ordering the suspension of a criminal investigation – Whether there was evidence to support the assertion that a criminal investigation would infringe the investors’ rights

Procedure – Preliminary objections – ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(1) – Whether an additional objection to jurisdiction and admissibility was made as early as possible

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Investment – ICSID Convention, Article 25 – Whether the claimants were investors making an investment under the BIT and the ICSID Convention

Jurisdiction – Legality – Corruption – Burden of proof – Whether the State met its burden of proving illegality on the part of the investors

Admissibility – Contract – Umbrella clause – Whether the tribunal could hear claims related to contractual breach under the BIT’s umbrella clause

Applicable law – Property – Municipal law – Whether issues related to property rights would be decided solely under municipal law or under both municipal and international law

Jurisdiction – Investment – Property – Municipal law – Contract – Whether properties had been transferred by universal succession by contract under municipal law

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility – Internationally wrongful act – Whether the principles of attribution could be applied to conduct that was not an allegedly wrongful act

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – State organ – Corruption – Whether the allegedly corrupt acts of officials transformed the attributable conduct of a State organ into purely private acts

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – Whether a privatisation fund was an entity empowered by municipal law to exercise elements of governmental authority

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Effective control – Evidence – Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that a holding company was under the effective control of the State

Contract – Privity – Whether the State was bound by a contract entered into by a State-appointed liquidator

Admissibility – Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Whether there was an obligation to exhaust domestic remedies in the absence of an alleged denial of justice

Expropriation – Direct expropriation – Whether registering State ownership of land without providing compensation constituted a direct expropriation

Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Real estate – Whether failure to facilitate registration of land led to an indirect expropriation

Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Contract – Whether contractual rights specific to certain properties were indirectly expropriated

Fair and equitable treatment – Legitimate expectation – Whether there could be a legitimate expectation with respect to properties in which the investors had no property or contractual right – Whether there was a legitimate expectation that the investor would be able to register certain properties – Whether the investors established that the State interfered with their attempt to register ownership contrary to a legitimate expectation

Umbrella clause – Contract – Privity – Whether an umbrella clause can be invoked in respect of contracts entered into with entities that were separate and distinct from the State

Remedies – Compensation – Quantum – Lost rental income – Indirect loss – Causation – Whether the award of compensation should include lost rental income – Whether there was a causal link between the expropriation and indirect loss suffered by the investors

Costs – Loser pays – ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) – Discretion – Whether the State’s share of costs should be reduced when the investors only recovered 2% of the compensation claimed

Jurisdiction – Investment – Contract – Shares – ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) – Salini test – Whether contract, execution, amendment and performance were an investment under a BIT – Whether shares in a local company were an investment under a BIT – Whether the investments met the guidance provided by the Salini test

Admissibility – Parallel proceedings – Res judicata – Bad faith – Claim-splitting – Whether the claims were inadmissible because the investor’s subsidiary had pursued contractual claims in parallel arbitration proceedings

Procedure – Stay of proceedings – Parallel proceedings – Res judicata – Claim-splitting – Whether the tribunal had to stay the arbitration to await the result of parallel proceedings

Jurisdiction – Investment – Legality – Corruption – Lobbying – Evidence – Whether bribe by a subcontractor to officials affected the legality of the investment – Whether using personal connections for the benefit of the investor was corrupt – Whether paying generous fees to a local representative was evidence of corruption or legitimate lobbying

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – State organ – State-owned entity – Whether a national oil company or its subsidiary were organs of the State

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – State-owned entity – Whether a national oil company or its subsidiary were empowered to exercise governmental authority

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Direction or control – State-owned entity – Contract – Whether a national oil company or its subsidiary were directed or controlled by the State – Whether the decision to reduce the supply of natural gas contrary to contractual agreement was made under the direction or control of the State

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 11 – Conduct adopted by the State – State-owned entity – Contract – Whether the breach of contract by a national oil company or its subsidiary had been adopted by the State as its own conduct

Fair and equitable treatment – Customary international law – Legitimate expectation – Contract – Taxation – Specific assurance – Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was equivalent to the customary minimum standard – Whether legitimate expectations were protected by the customary minimum standard – Whether a contract between the investor and the subsidiary of a national oil company created a legitimate expectation – Whether a letter from a State official created a legitimate expectation – Whether the expectation was relied upon – Whether the expectation was defeated – Whether non-payment under a contract defeated a legitimate expectation – Whether revocation of tax-free status defeated a legitimate expectation

State responsibility – State of necessity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 25 – Only way – Essential interest – Contribution – Civil unrest – Economic crisis – Contract – Whether non-supply of natural gas was the only way to safeguard an essential interest – Whether maintenance of public safety was the basis for non-supply of natural gas – Whether natural gas shortage was an essential interest – Whether the State contributed to the situation of necessity

Remedies – Compensation – Quantum – Contract – Reduction – Mitigation – Interest – Whether the investor could claim more compensation than available under a contract – Whether the investor suffered loss – Whether the claim for compensation was excessively speculative – Whether lost cash flows were recoverable – Whether the investor suffered lost dividends – Whether compensation should be reduced to reflect lesser need for working capital and taxes – Whether the investor could have mitigated losses – Whether pre-award interest should be awarded – Whether post-award interest should be awarded

Costs – Costs follow the event – Legal fees – Arbitration costs – Whether the unsuccessful party was to pay the legal fees of the successful party – Whether the unsuccessful party was to pay the arbitration costs of the successful party

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – State organ – De jure State organ – De facto State organ – Whether complete dependence on the State could be established by the performance of core State functions, daily subordination to central government, or the absence of any operational autonomy – Whether the execution of a mission of public interest sufficed to qualify an entity as a State organ – Whether State supervision amounted to daily subordination or lack of operational autonomy

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – Whether an entity was authorised by law to exercise elements of public authority – Whether the impugned acts were performed in the context of such governmental authority – Whether acts performed in the public interest pertained to governmental authority

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Instructions, direction or control – Whether control referred to overall or effective control – Whether control can be evidenced by the overall context of the relationship with the State – Whether such control should extend to the act that was being challenged – Whether ultra vires acts and conduct were attributable – Whether the alignment of interests with the State was sufficient for attribution

Fair and equitable treatment – Legitimate expectation – Specific promise – Material advantage – Whether an investment should have been made on the basis of the alleged expectation – Whether an expectation can be based on vague promises to grant work

Fair and equitable treatment – Good faith – Evidence – Whether a breach of good faith required a proof of bad faith conduct – Whether an uncorroborated witness statement can evidence threats by the State

Fair and equitable treatment – Unjustified, incoherent or arbitrary conduct – Whether the terms “unjustified” and “arbitrary” were equivalent – Whether a failure to succeed in contractual negotiations can evidence an unjustified or incoherent conduct

Non-impairment – Fair and equitable treatment – Judicial economy – Whether the non-impairment standard overlapped with fair and equitable treatment

Umbrella clause – Interpretation – VCLT, Article 33 – Reconciliation of equally authentic texts – Whether the clause covered non-contractual obligations

Costs – Good faith – Whether the unsuccessful party should not be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs because the former brought the proceeding in good faith

Jurisdiction – Investment – Shares – Indirect ownership – Whether the indirect ownership of shares in a locally incorporated company could qualify as a protected investment

Jurisdiction – Investment – ICSID Additional Facility – Interpretation – Whether the meaning of investment under the ICSID Convention applied in ICSID Additional Facility arbitration

Jurisdiction – Investment – ICSID Additional Facility – Interpretation – Salini test – Whether indirect ownership of shares in a locally incorporated company qualified as a protected investment

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Contribution – Indirect ownership – Whether a foreign investor’s investment indirectly made through layers of wholly owned subsidiaries qualified as a protected investor

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Standing – Shareholder – Whether an indirect shareholder was entitled to claim compensation for damage to assets owned by its locally incorporated subsidiary

Umbrella clause – Interpretation – Whether a foreign investor may use an umbrella clause to elevate contractual claims to treaty claims

Umbrella clause – Interpretation – Forum selection – Whether a foreign investor may use an umbrella clause to circumvent a dispute resolution forum that was contractually agreed upon

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – Contract – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Whether a State may act through its parastatal entities to enter into construction contracts

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Direct control – Whether the conduct of State-owned entities was attributable to the State – Whether the supervision of a series of State-owned entities by various government actors rendered their conduct attributable to the State

War losses clause – Compensation for losses – Lex specialis – Interpretation – Whether a clause providing compensation for losses in times of armed conflict was lex specialis that supplanted other treaty provisions

War losses clause – Compensation for losses – Requisition – Interpretation – Whether a foreign investor can claim compensation for the requisition of assets forming part of its investment by forces loyal to the regime

War losses clause – Compensation for losses – Destruction – Interpretation – Whether a foreign investor can claim compensation for the total or partial destruction of its investment when some of the destruction was not attributable to State-affiliated actors

Full protection and security – Circumstances of the host State – Interpretation – Whether the standard of full and constant protection and security prescribes the reasonable measures of prevention that any well-administered government would exercise under similar circumstances – Whether the standard of full and constant protection and security considerations required a tribunal to take into account the conditions prevailing in the host State

Umbrella clause – Contract – Compensation – Whether a foreign investor can claim compensation for alleged breaches of contractual obligations brought under an umbrella clause

Counterclaim – Umbrella clause – Set-off – Additional claim – Incidental claim – Whether a respondent State can assert an additional or incidental contractual claim brought under the tribunal’s jurisdiction by operation of an umbrella clause – Whether the circumstances of the domestic courts were relevant to whether a tribunal should resolve the contractual counterclaim

Costs – ICSID Additional Facility – Whether the losing party should bear the winning party’s costs even where the winning party was only partly successful