Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dkgms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T17:45:25.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NAFTA Chapter Eleven Arbitral Tribunal: Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Barton Legum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 44 , Issue 6 , November 2005 , pp. 1343 - 1464
Copyright
Copyright ©American Society of International Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Endnotes

page 1344 note 1 See <http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm>.

page 1344 note 2 Law journal articles devoted to the case include: Mistelis, Loukas A, Confidentiality and Third Party Participation: UPS v. Canada and Methanex Corporation v. United States, 21 Arbitration Int'l 211 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yee, Marisa, The Future of Environmental Regulation after Article 1110 of NAFTA: A Look at the Methanex and Metalclad Cases, 9 Hastings W.N.W. J. Envt'l l.& Policy 85 (2002)Google Scholar; Kirkman, Courtney C., Fair and Equitable Treatment: Methanex v. United States.and the Narrowing Scope of NAFTA Article 1105, 34 L. & Policy In Int'l Business 343 (2002)Google Scholar; Howard Mann, Opening the Doors, at Least a Little: Comment on the Amicus Decision in Methanex v. United States, 10 Rev. Eur. Comm. & Int'l Envt'l L. 241 (2001).

page 1351 note 1 Along with many other materials in these arbitration proceedings, the Partial Award and the Tribunal's Decisions have been published (but not by the Tribunal) on the internet: e.g. http://www.naftaclaims.com and http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm.

page 1351 note 2 See Ms Menaker, Counsel for the USA, Transcript Day 2, p. 422. (For ease of reference in this Award, references to the corrected transcript of the main hearing in June 2004 are as follows: Transcript Day 1 [i.e. 7th June 2004] to Transcript Day 9 [i.e. 17th June 2004], with page number. The corrected transcript is currently available at e.g. http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm. Where reference is made to the transcript of, say, the procedural meeting of March 2003, this is made clear in the relevant footnote.)

page 1351 note 3 The text of Mr Christopher's response of 20th September 2002 is set out below, in Chapter II E of this Award.

page 1351 note 4 The withdrawal of Mr Christopher later became a ground for Methanex's Request for Reconsideration of Chapters J and K of the Partial Award, considered below in Chapter IIE of this Award.

page 1351 note 5 Transcript Day 9, pp. 2199-2200.

page 1357 note 1 See e.g. Dugan, Mr, Counsel for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1853-1854.Google Scholar

page 1357 note 2 Methanex's Reply, paras. 198-202.

page 1357 note 3 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 1, p. 155.

page 1357 note 4 Article 2101 NAFTA, on which Methanex also relies, considered further in Part IV below.

page 1357 note 5 Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention (Ireland v. United Kingdom), para. 85, 42 ILM 1118,1136.

page 1358 note 6 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 1, p. 35: “Now, is WTO law controlling? No, obviously not. But should it be treated as persuasive precedent if its analysis and its rules are well developed and consistent and logical? Yes, it should be.“

page 1358 note 7 Amended Statement of Defense, para. 304.

page 1358 note 8 See Methanex’ s Notice of a Submission of a Claim to Arbitration dated 3rd December 1999, p. 2. Article 1120(1) NAFTA provides: “Exceptas provided in Annex II 20.I , and provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to a claim, a disputing investor may submit the claim to arbitration under: … ( c) the Uncitral Arbitration Rules”.

page 1358 note 9 Article 1120(2) NAFTA provides: “The applicable arbitration rules shall govern the arbitration except to the extent modified by this Section.“

page 1358 note 10 See e.g. Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1836- 1837.

page 1358 note 11 See e.g. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2“d ed., 1984, p.121. Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, 1953, p.114.

page 1358 note 12 The MOX Plant case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Order on Provisional Measures, 3rd December 2001, para. 51, 41 ILM 405, 413, quoted in Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention (Ireland v. United Kingdom), para. 141, 42 ILM 1118, 1144.

page 1358 note 13 See Ms Menaker for the USA, Transcript Day 3, p. 566.

page 1358 note 14 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, Vol. II, p. 221, para. 14.

page 1358 note 15 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v. Namibia ) 1999, ICJ Rep. 1, para. 49.

page 1358 note 16 Daillier et al., Droit International Public, 6th ed., p. 254.

page 1358 note 17 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, Vol. II, p. 223, para. 18.

page 1358 note 18 Article 9.2 sets out seven grounds (a) - (g), here incorporated by reference.

page 1368 note 1 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, p. 1819.

page 1368 note 2 This title ‘'Second Amended Statement of Claim'’ is the name given to this pleading by Methanex. In fact, in the Partial Award, the Tribunal did not allow Methanex's application to amend its claim as set out in the draft Amended Statement of Claim dated 12th February 2001. Thus, although the pleading of 5th November 2002 is here described as the Second Amended Statement of Claim, it is strictly Methanex's first Amended Statement of Claim in these arbitration proceedings. For ease of reference, however, the Tribunal is content to follow Methanex's nomenclature.

page 1368 note 3 Second Am. Claim, para. 22. As noted elsewhere, Methanex’ s claim as formulated in its original Statement of Claim of 3rd December 1999 did not allege that the California Regulations were a “measure”. (These regulations only took effect after Methanex's submission of this pleading).

page 1368 note 4 Partial Award, paras. 13 and 93.

page 1368 note 5 The Disputing Parties also made submissions on Methanex's application in respect of further evidence (considered below, in Chapter II G of this Award).

page 1368 note 6 The transcript is available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/19455.pdf.

page 1368 note 7 The full text of this statement may be obtained from http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/Nondisputing-en.pdf.

page 1368 note 8 The Tribunal notes that in its joint statement of 16th July 2004, the FTC stated: “We are pleased that the transparency initiatives we took during our October 2003 meeting have already begun to improve the operation of the investment chapter investor-state dispute-settlement mechanism. Earlier this year, for the first time a tribunal accepted written submisions from a non-disputing party and adopted the procedures that we recommended following our October 7, 2003 meeting in Montreal, for the handling of such submissions.''

page 1368 note 9 These submissions are available on the internet at http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm.

page 1368 note 10 So far as witnesses are concerned, “x” signifies direct examination, “xx” signifies cross-examination, and “xxx” signifies re-direct examination.

page 1368 note 11 Transcript Day 9, p. 2198. Article 29(1) provides: “The arbitral tribunal may inquire of the parties if they have any further proof to offer or witnesses to be heard or submissions to make and, if there are none, it may declare the hearings closed. ‘

page 1372 note 1 Second Am. Claim, paras. 12 and 89.

page 1372 note 2 Id., paras. 91-94 and 101-102.

page 1372 note 3 Id., para. 86.

page 1372 note 4 Id., para. 70.

page 1372 note 5 Id., para. 93.

page 1372 note 6 Id., para. 158.

page 1372 note 7 Id., paras. 77-83. There appears to be some overlap so far as concerns categories (ii) and (iii). See e.g. Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript, Day 1, pp. 27-28.

page 1373 note 8 Nor is it covered by the waiver annexed to the Second Am.claim.

page 1373 note 9 A sum that Methanex claims to be inadequate to fund properly the assigned work: see Second Am. Claim, para. 112.

page 1373 note 10 Id., para. 21.

page 1373 note 11 Id., paras. 114-116.

page 1373 note 12 Id., para. 22. See further Part III below.

page 1373 note 13 Id., paras. 89-90 and 191-201.

page 1373 note 14 Id., para. 105.

page 1373 note 15 Id., paras. 105-110.

page 1373 note 16 Id., paras. 141 and 143.

page 1373 note 17 Id., para. 296.

page 1373 note 18 Id., para. 313.

page 1373 note 19 Id., para. 317.

page 1373 note 20 Id., paras. 282-285 and 296.

page 1373 note 21 Id., paras. 286-290.

page 1373 note 22 Id., para. 327.

page 1373 note 23 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, p. 1998.

page 1381 note 1 Partial Award, paras. 172(1) and (7). The Partial Award also contains decisions on Methanex's application to amend its Statement of Claim and Methanex's request for documentary disclosure: see Chapters F and G of the Partial Award.

page 1381 note 2 In relevant part, Article 1101(1) provides that Chapter 11 of NAFTA “applies to measures adopted or maintained by a Party relating to: (a) investors of another Party; (b) investments of investors of another Party in the territory of the Party …”.

page 1381 note 3 Partial Award, paras. 129-147, 150 and 172(2).

page 1381 note 4 Id., paras. 151, 153, 157.

page 1381 note 5 This is a reference to the draft Amended Statement of Claim of 12th February 2001.

page 1381 note 6 Partial Award, paras. 172(2)-(5). See also paras. 151-161, 169.

page 1381 note 7 With respect to certain “Further Matters'’ raised by Methanex, particularly Methanex's renewed request for an order compelling the USA to produce any potentially relevant parts of NAFTA's negotiating history, see below, at Chapter II H of this Award.

page 1381 note 8 Referring to Ford Aerospace & Comm. Corp. v. Air Force of Islamic Republic of Iran, 6 Iran-US CTR, 104, 109; and van Hof, Commentary on the Uncitral Arbitration Rules, p. 218: ”… Although the preliminary draft did not define the term “award”, it was meant to include interim, interlocutory or partial awards, as well as final awards. After a suggestion at the Commission's deliberation, an explicit provision to this effect was included in this article, the present para. 1. The present para. 2 was included in the earlier draft as part of para. 1, which was later renumbered. The second sentence was only added after it was made a separate sentence.“

page 1381 note 9 Methanex's letter of 14th April 2004 stated: “Mr. Christopher personally pitched a case to Governor Davis after this case had commenced, and Governor Davis personally decided,over the objection of his Attorney General, to award a lucrative representation to Mr. Christopher's firm”. Mr Christopher stated in his Response of 20th September 2002: “ I did not make a personal appeal to the Governor to obtain that representation for O ‘Melveny over the opposition of the Attorney and, indeed, I have never spoken to Governor Davis about the case”. See further below.

page 1381 note 10 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1818-1819.

page 1381 note 11 This is a reference to the new Counsel then acting for Methanex in place of its original Counsel at the time of Mr Christopher's appointment. (Subsequently, Paul Hastings, Janofsky& Walker LLP acted as Counsel for Methanex).

page 1381 note 12 There is no dispute as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make a partial, as opposed to a final, award. That jurisdiction is expressly established by Article 32(1) of the Uncitral Rules.

page 1381 note 13 Partial Award, para. 172(4); also paras. 172(2) and (6).

page 1381 note 14 Transcript of 12th July 2001, p. 364.

page 1381 note 15 Even if the Tribunal had upheld one or more of the USA's challenges, it would still have had to make a further award on costs as issues on costs had not been fully debated before the Tribunal.

page 1381 note 16 Transcript of 13th July 2001, pp. 541-542.

page 1381 note 17 Braspetro Oil Services Co. v. Great Man-Made River Project (1999) XXIVa ICCA YBCA 296; Publicis Communications v. True North Communications Inc 203 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2000); (2000) XXV ICCA YBCA 1152.

page 1381 note 18 If relevant, the Tribunal would have found that reconsideration of the Partial Award would have caused prejudice to the USA. There is little point in any arbitration tribunal making jurisdictional decisions intended and understood to be final and binding on the parties if, much later, a disappointed party can re-argue its jurisdictional case and turn the arbitration into the equivalent of Sisyphus's torment or the film “Groundhog Day”.

page 1387 note 1 Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 1, pp. 120-123.

page 1387 note 2 A proposed draft regulation, substantively in the same form as was subsequently adopted on 1st May 2003, had been annexed to Methanex's Second Am. Claim and was referred to in that pleading, at para. 122.

page 1387 note 3 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1787-1789.

page 1387 note 4 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1810-1811.

page 1387 note 5 Exhibit 1 to Methanex's History and Amendments to California Phase Three Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG3) (referred to below as Methanex's History).

page 1387 note 6 Methanex cited this text in its Amended Article 1119 Notice to the USA of 22nd December 2000 and its Request to Extend or Suspend the Current Jurisdictional Schedule also of 22nd December 2000.

page 1387 note 7 Exhibit 1 to Methanex's History, p. 24.

page 1387 note 8 Cal. Air Resources Bd., Res. 99-39, 3rd December 1999, 16 JS Tab 24 to the USA's Am. Defense; Exhibit 2 to Methanex's History, p. 2.

page 1387 note 9 Cal. Air Resources Bd., Final regulation Order, Amendments to Postpone Imposition of the CaRFG3 Standards, 8th November 2002, 14 JS Tab 17 to the USA's Am. Defense (the new regulations being cited at para. 75, p. 28, of that pleading); and Exhibit 4 to Methanex's History, p. 13.

page 1387 note 10 Exhibit 5 to Methanex's History, p. 5; see also Cal. Air Resources Bd., Proposed Regulation Order, Amendments to the California Phase 3 Gasoline Regulation to Refine the Prohibitions of MTBE. In November 2002, these proposed amended regulations had not been brought into force.

page 1387 note 11 Exhibit 6 to Methanex's History, p. 2.

page 1387 note 12 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1790-1792, 1811.

page 1387 note 13 See Methanex's Reply, paras. 30 and 246.

page 1387 note 14 Mr Legum for the USA, Transcript Day 9, pp. 2030-2046. The USA had also contended that, as explained in a Statement of Reasons issued by the California Air Resources Board, the 11 compounds were listed in § 2262.6(c)(4) because they comprised all the compounds listed in the test method for the presence of oxygenates in gasoline as set out by the American Society of Testing and Materials. The USA maintained that its contentions in this regard had not been challenged by Methanex (Am. Defense, fn. 267 at p. 60, Transcript Day 2, pp. 326-327).

page 1387 note 15 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, p. 1797.

page 1387 note 16 Id., p. 1811: ”… I may be beating a dead horse…. You [the Tribunal] asked what is the subsequent effect of this latest change for a methanol producer? There is none …”.

page 1393 note 1 See e.g. Smit, Hans, “Assistance Rendered by the United States in Proceedings before International Tribunals” (1962) 62 Colum. L Rev. 1264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “International Litigation Under the United States Code” (1965) 65 Col L Rev. 1015. More recently, see Smit, Hans “The Supreme Court Rules on the Proper Interpretation of Section 1782: Its Potential Significance for International Arbitration” (2003) 14 Am Rev. Int. Arb 295 Google Scholar.

page 1393 note 2 See footnote 1, at p. 3 of Methanex's First Request for Additional Evidence: “Although courts have held that it may not be necessary for a litigant to obtain the permission of the Tribunal before seeking an order in [a] district court… Methanex wishes to avoid any dispute as to whether it was first required to obtain a Tribunal order.“

page 1393 note 3 Intel Corp v Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241 (2004), holding that US District Courts have a discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) to order discovery to a private party for use in an anti-trust investigation by the EU Commission to which that party had filed a complaint. The EU Commission was.treated as a “foreign tribunal“; and the Supreme Court rejected the Commission's argument (as amicus) that such an order should only be made at the request of the Commission and not at the behest of a private complainant only.

page 1393 note 4 Representations were made by Mr Dugan on behalf of Methanex, and by Mr Clodfelter, Mr Legum and Ms Menaker on behalf of the USA (submissions in respect of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 on behalf of the USA were made principally by Mr Legum).

page 1393 note 5 Transcript of 31st March 2003, pp. 28 and 33.

page 1393 note 6 Id., p. 36-38.

page 1393 note 7 Id., pp. 34, 42 and 98.

page 1393 note 8 Id., p. 43.

page 1393 note 9 Id., pp. 57-58.

page 1393 note 10 Similarly, that there were also issues as to whether the USA could be a person subject to discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 and as to whether the relief sought would violate the Eleventh Amendment. Transcript of 31st March 2003, pp. 62-64.

page 1393 note 11 Id., pp. 65-67. In this respect, cf. Methanex's 4th October 2002 Request and its letter of 30th January 2003.

page 1393 note 12 Transcript of 31st March 2003, p. 95. Its position was that the evidence from the public record was nonetheless sufficient to sustain a judgment that California had acted with the intent of protecting ethanol producers and disadvantaging their competitors.

page 1393 note 13 Id., pp. 96-102.

page 1393 note 14 Id., pp. 108-109.

page 1393 note 15 Id., P- 127.

page 1393 note 16 The dates in Intel Corp v Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241 (2004) are instructive; the dates of the three judgments are: (i) 7th January 2002: District Court for the Northern District of California; (ii) 6th June 2002: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and (iii) 21st June 2004: US Supreme Court.

page 1393 note 17 Transcript of 31st March 2003, pp. 154-155.

page 1393 note 18 540 U.S. 93, 124 S. Ct. 619 (2003).

page 1393 note 19 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1846-1848, 1850-1851.

page 1393 note 20 Id. p. 1851.

page 1393 note 21 This was not withstanding a specific request from the Tribunal, Transcript Day 8, p. 1846.

page 1393 note 22 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, p. 1841.

page 1393 note 23 Transcript of 31st March 2003, p. 40.

page 1398 note 1 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1826-1827, 1831.

page 1398 note 2 The FTC's statement of 16th July 2004 noted: “We are committed to transparency in trade negotiations. The negotiating texts of the NAFTA are documents of historical value and we recognize the level of public interest in them. We asked our officials to compile the NAFTA negotiating texts, bearing in mind the time necessary to complete this. We began the process with Chapter 11 and are pleased to announce that Chapter I1 texts will be available through our websites”. The negotiating history is available at <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/disp/trilateral_neg-en.asp>.

page 1398 note 3 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1825, 1829.

page 1398 note 4 Id., p. 1830: “as to what should have been raised in 2003, Methanex, in retrospect, probably should have raised it, but it was a matter of in litigation you pick and choose where you make your requests and where you fight your fights. And Methanex decided not to.“

page 1398 note 5 Id., Transcript Day 8, p. 1821.

page 1398 note 6 Transcript Day 8, p. 1822; Canfor Corporation v. The USA, Procedural Order No. 5 of 28th May 2004 (This Canfor order is available on the internet: see <www.naftalaw.org>).

page 1398 note 7 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, p. 1831.

page 1398 note 8 Id., Transcript Day 8, pp. 1829-1830.

page 1398 note 9 id., Transcript Day 8, p. 1825.

page 1398 note 10 Id., Transcript Day 8, p. 1826.

page 1398 note 11 Id., Transcript Day 8, pp. 1835, 1836-1837.

page 1398 note 12 Id., Transcript Day 8, p. 1823. The USA was ordered to disclose the texts. See Canfor Corporation v. The USA, Procedural Order No. 5 of 28th May 2004, para. 8.

page 1398 note 13 Mr Dugan for Methanex, Transcript Day 8, pp. 1838-1840.

page 1398 note 14 The position in this arbitration may be contrasted with the parties’ position in Canfor v. The USA. This Tribunal does not know the circumstances under Article 32 which may have moved the Canfor tribunal to decide as it dId., but would in any event not subscribe to the international legal reasons given by the Canfor tribunal for its Order No. 5, at para. 22 (see reference above).

page 1398 note 15 Oppenheim's International Law, 9th ed., Volume 1, p. 630.

page 1398 note 16 Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States, Award of 30th April 2004, 43 ILM 967 (discussed further in Part IV below).

page 1398 note 17 See the Commentary of the International Law Commission referred to above, in Chapter II B.

page 1398 note 18 In the Canfor case, the NAFTA tribunal decided that internal memoranda of one NAFTA Party do not reflect the common negotiating intention of the NAFTA Parties in drafting, adopting or rejecting a particular provision: see Canfor Corporation v. The USA, Procedural Order No. 5 of 28th May 2004, para. 19. The NAFTA tribunal case did not therefore order disclosure of such memoranda, although it did order the disclosure of communications, explanation notes, position papers or memoranda that were shared amongst the NAFTA Parties: see Id., paras. 20-21. For the reasons stated above, this Tribunal does not share the view expressed by the Canfor tribunal.

page 1409 note 1 Transcript Day 3, p. 619.

page 1409 note 2 Id., PP. 595-603.

page 1409 note 3 Id., pp. 604-609.

page 1409 note 4 Id., pp 637-638

page 1409 note 5 Id., pp. 641, 678.

page 1409 note 6 Id., p. 677.

page 1409 note 7 Id., PP. 646-652.

page 1409 note 8 Id., p. 664.

page 1409 note 9 Id., pp. 682-684.

page 1409 note 10 Id., p. 685.

page 1409 note 11 Id., pp. 686-689.

page 1409 note 12 Id., pp. 693-707. Methanex relied on two signed receipts,subsequently numbered exhibits X6-X7, as evidence that the originals had been handed over to Methanex's counsel on 8th June 2004.

page 1409 note 13 Transcript Day 3, p. 713.

page 1409 note 14 Id., PP. 715-717.

page 1409 note 15 Id., PP. 718-719.

page 1409 note 16 Id., pp. 722-724.

page 1409 note 17 The photographs were subsequently admitted into evidence by the Tribunal and numbered Exhibits X8-X10. The USA also tendered two satellite photographs and a map of the area of the Regent International offices, which were numbered Exhibits X11-X12 and X13 respectively.

page 1409 note 18 Transcript Day 4, pp. 1011-1012.

page 1409 note 19 Id., pp. 943-945.

page 1409 note 20 Id., pp. 1018-1019.

page 1409 note 21 Id., pp. 998-1002.

page 1409 note 22 Id., p. 1003.

page 1409 note 23 Id., p. 1008.

page 1409 note 24 Id., pp. 1008-1011.

page 1409 note 25 The photograph was numbered Exhibit X14.

page 1409 note 26 Transcript Day 7, p. 1606.

page 1409 note 27 Id., p. 1613.

page 1409 note 28 Id., pp. 1614-1616.

page 1410 note 29 Id., p.1624.

page 1410 note 30 Id., pp. 1634-1635.

page 1410 note 31 Id., p.1643.

page 1410 note 32 Id., pp. 1644-1645.

page 1410 note 33 Id., pp. 1669-1670.

page 1410 note 34 Id., pp. 1648-1649.

page 1410 note 35 Id., pp. 1651-1654.

page 1410 note 36 Id., pp. 1664-1666.

page 1410 note 37 Id., p. 1655.

page 1410 note 38 Id., P- 1650.

page 1410 note 39 Id., pp. 1704-1722.

page 1410 note 40 Id., pp. 1729 and 1767-1768.

page 1428 note 1 Professor Graham E. Fogg, Transcript Day 5, pp. 1232; 1235- 1236.

page 1428 note 2 Arturo Keller et al., Executive Summary, Recommendations, Summary, in UC Report Vol. I: Summary& Recommendations, at pp. 9-10 (4 JS tab 36) (hereinafter Keller et al., UC Report Vol. 1).

page 1428 note 3 Ibid

page 1428 note 4 Ibid

page 1428 note 5 Keller et al., UC Report Vol. 1, at 11 (4 JS tab 36).

page 1428 note 6 Id.

page 1428 note 7 Id., PP. 16-18.

page 1428 note 8 Id., PP. 15, 18.

page 1428 note 9 Id., p. 15.

page 1428 note 10 Id.

page 1428 note 11 Id., P. 11.

page 1428 note 12 Id.

page 1428 note 13 Id.

page 1428 note 14 Id., pp. 11-12.

page 1428 note 15 Id., p. 12.

page 1428 note 16 Id.

page 1428 note 17 Id.

page 1428 note 18 Id.

page 1428 note 19 Id.

page 1428 note 20 Id., pp. 12-13.

page 1428 note 21 Id.

page 1428 note 22 Id., p. 13.

page 1428 note 23 Id

page 1428 note 24 Id., p. 14.

page 1428 note 25 Transcript of UC Report Hearing at Diamond Bar, at pp. 18- 87, 19th February 1999 (15 JS tab 22 at 581); Transcript of UC Report Hearing at Sacramento, at pp. 2-81, 23rd February 1999 (15 JS tab 22 at 782).

page 1428 note 26 Transcript of UC Report Hearing at Sacramento, 23rd February 1999 (15 JS Tab 22 at 913-1017).

page 1428 note 27 US Geological Survey, Comments on Health and Environmental Assessment of MTBE, p. 2 (18 JS 148).

page 1428 note 28 US Dep't of Health& Human Servs., Comments on Health and Environmental Assessment of MTBE (24th December 1998) (18 JS 145).

page 1428 note 29 US Dep't of Health&Human Servs., Comments on Health and Environmental Assessment of MTBE (18 JS 145).

page 1428 note 30 Cal. Air Resources Bd., Comments on Health and Environmental Assessment of MTBE, (16 JS 25).

page 1428 note 31 1999 Executive Order, preamble (1 JS Tab 1 (c)).

page 1428 note 32 Id.

page 1428 note 33 1999 Executive Order, para. 4 (1 JS Tab 1 (c)).

page 1428 note 34 Id., para. 2.

page 1428 note 35 Id., para. 10.

page 1428 note 36 1999 Executive Order, para. 10 (1 JS Tab 1 (c)).

page 1428 note 37 Certification of Human Health or Environmental Risks of Using Gasoline Containing MTBE in California (16 JS Tab 35 at 1289).

page 1428 note 38 Letter From Governor Davis to Carol M. Browner, Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency, 12th April 1999 (16 JS tab 65).

page 1428 note 39 16 JS Tab 66 at 1581.

page 1428 note 40 16 JS Tab 67 at 1583.

page 1428 note 41 Press Release, Office of the Governor of Cal., Governor Davis Sues US EPA over Gasoline Additive, 13th August 2001 (17 JS tab 117).

page 1428 note 42 Davis v. EPA, 336 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (16 JS Tab 41 at 1331).

page 1428 note 43 Press Release, Office of Governor Davis, Statement Regarding Federal Court's MTBE Ruling, 17th July 2003 (17 JS tab 116).

page 1428 note 44 Letter From Governor Davis to Marianne Lamont Horinko, Acting Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency, 6th August 2003 (16 JS Tab 68 at 1585).

page 1428 note 45 SB 989, Senate Bill-History-18 JS Tab 128 at 2512.

page 1428 note 46 Association of Cal. Water Agencies, More About ACWA, at http://www.acwanet.com/aboutacwa/ more about acwa.asp.

page 1428 note 47 8 JS 180 through to 9 JS 184.

page 1428 note 48 Summ-1 (25 JS Tab 15).

page 1428 note 49 Volume 1, pp. 1-22 (25 JS Tab 6).

page 1428 note 50 Volume 3, Air Quality Impact of the Use of Ethanol in California Reformulated Gasoline, p. 3 (13A JS Tab 8).

page 1428 note 51 Volume 5, Response to Comments, p. B-32 (25 JS Tab 6).

page 1428 note 52 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 13, § 2262.6(a) (2000) (14 JS tab 10, 18).

page 1428 note 53 Id., § 2262.3(a).

page 1428 note 54 Cal. Air Resources Bd., Res. 99-39, at pp. 6-7 (16 JS tab 24).

page 1428 note 55 2002 Cal. Exec. Order D-52-02 (16 JS tab 46).

page 1428 note 56 Id., preamble.

page 1428 note 57 Id. (emphasis added).

page 1428 note 58 Press Release, Office of Governor Davis, Governor Davis Allows More Time for Ethanol Solution, 15th March 2002 (17 JStab 115).

page 1428 note 59 Second Am. Claim, paras. 111-117; Reply, paras. 75-83.

page 1428 note 60 Reply, para. 75.

page 1428 note 61 Second Am. Claim, para. 112.

page 1428 note 62 Reply, para. 76.

page 1428 note 63 Id., para. 78.

page 1428 note 64 Id.

page 1428 note 65 Am. Defense, para. 54.

page 1428 note 66 Am. Defense, paras. 53-54.

page 1428 note 67 Reply, para. 147; Transcript Day 1, pp. 246-247 (Mr Dugan for Methanex).

page 1428 note 68 Exponent, Evaluation of UST/LUST Status in California and MTBE in Drinking Water, November 2002, Second Am. Claim, Exhibit E.

page 1428 note 69 Id., p. xiv.

page 1429 note 70 Id

page 1429 note 71 Id

page 1429 note 72 Id

page 1429 note 73 Exponent, Evaluation of the University of California Report Titled “Health&Environmental Assessment of MTBE”, January 2003 (12 JS tab C).

page 1429 note 74 Id., p. 3.

page 1429 note 75 Id., p. 7.

page 1429 note 76 Id., pp. 9 and 11.

page 1429 note 77 Id., p. 14.

page 1429 note 78 Exponent, Evaluation of the Cal-EPA Report Titled “Health& Environmental Assessment of the Use of Ethanol as a Fuel Oxygenate”, January 2003 (12 JS tab D).

page 1429 note 79 Id., p. 3.

page 1429 note 80 Id., p. 7.

page 1429 note 81 Id., pp. 7-8.

page 1429 note 82 Id., p. 9.

page 1429 note 83 Id., p. ES-2.

page 1429 note 84 Gordon C. Rausser, Was the Decision to Ban MTBE Supported by the Empirical Evidence?, 31st January 2003, p. 5 (12 JS tab F).

page 1429 note 85 Id., p. 5.

page 1429 note 86 Id., p. 6.

page 1429 note 87 Ibid

page 1429 note 88 Report of Gordon Rausser, 19th February 2004, p. 3 (20 JS tab A).

page 1429 note 89 C. Herb Ward, Transport, Fate, and Remediation of MTBE and Ethanol Used as Fuel Oxygenates, 31st January 2003, pp. 2-3 (12 JS tab G).

page 1429 note 90 C. Herb Ward, Response to Rebuttal of the Methanex Report on Transport, Fate, and Remediation of MTBE and Ethanol Used as Fuel Oxygenates, 19th February 2004, pp. 2-3 (20 JS tab B).

page 1429 note 91 Id., P- 2.

page 1429 note 92 Id.

page 1429 note 93 Expert Report of Pamela Williams (undated), p. 2 (12 JS tab B).

page 1429 note 94 Rebuttal Report by Dr Pamela Williams to Amended Statement of Defense of Respondent and Selected expert Reports in Methanex v. USA, 19thFebruary 2004, p.l (20 JS tab C).

page 1429 note 95 Id., P. 2.

page 1429 note 96 Id., P. 3.

page 1429 note 97 Id., P. 4.

page 1429 note 98 Id., pp. 6-7.

page 1429 note 99 Dr Williams' First Expert Report, p. 3.

page 1429 note 100 Id., P. 4.

page 1429 note 101 Id., P. 5.

page 1429 note 102 Expert Report of Bruce F. Burke, December 2003, p. 4, para. 21 (13 JS tab B).

page 1429 note 103 Id., p. 37. para 126.

page 1429 note 104 Rejoinder Expert Report of Bruce F.Burke, April 2004, rejoinder Report, pp. 10-11, paras. 34-37 (24 JS tab A).

page 1429 note 105 Mr Burke, Transcript Day 6, pp. 1414, 1415, 1422 and 1484.

page 1429 note 106 Id., pp. 1430, 1432-1433.

page 1429 note 107 Expert Report of Graham E. Fogg, 1st December 2003, pp. 2-3 (13 JS tab D).

page 1429 note 108 Id., pp. 3-7.

page 1429 note 109 Rejoinder Report of Graham E. Fogg, p. 5 (24 JS tab B).

page 1429 note 110 Professor Fogg, Transcript Day 5, pp. 1232 and 1235-1236.

page 1429 note 111 Id., pp. 1246, 1248 and 1259.

page 1429 note 112 Dr Anne Happel, Analysis of the California UST & LUST Programs and the Impacts of MTBE and Ethanol to California Groundwater resources, December 2003, p. 1 (13 JS tab E).

page 1429 note 113 Id., pp. 3-7.

page 1429 note 114 Id., pp. 57-58 and 64-65.

page 1429 note 115 Rejoinder Report of Dr Anne Happel, 23rd April 2004.

page 1429 note 116 Id., p. 12.

page 1429 note 117 Id., p. 12; cf. Dr Pamela Williams’ Rebuttal Report, p. 12.

page 1429 note 118 Id., p. 16.

page 1429 note 119 Id., p. 30.

page 1429 note 120 Id., pp. 32-33.

page 1429 note 121 Id., p. 46.

page 1429 note 122 Id.

page 1429 note 123 Dr Happel, Transcript Day 5, pp. 1160-1162.

page 1429 note 124 Id., pp. 1164-1165.

page 1429 note 125 Id., pp. 1180-1185.

page 1429 note 126 Expert Report of Ed Whitelaw, November 2003, p. 9 (13A JS tab K).

page 1429 note 127 Id., pp. 3-5.

page 1429 note 128 Id., p 7.

page 1429 note 129 Id., pp 8, 9 and 49.

page 1429 note 130 Rejoinder Expert Report of Ed Whitelaw, 21st April 2004, pp. 7-8 (24 JS tab E).

page 1429 note 131 Professor Rausser's Report of 19th February 2004, p. 10.

page 1429 note 132 Id., p. Id.

page 1429 note 133 Id., p. 8.

page 1429 note 134 Id., p. 23.

page 1429 note 135 Professor Whitelaw, Transcript Day 6, p. 1536; see also pp. 1499, 1533-1536.

page 1429 note 136 Witness Statement of Dean C. Simeroth, 3rd December 2003, para. 10 (13A JS tab H).

page 1429 note 137 Id., para. 14.

page 1429 note 138 Id., paras. 10-11.

page 1429 note 139 Id., para. 30.

page 1429 note 140 Id.

page 1429 note 141 Id., paras. 33-34.

page 1429 note 142 Id., para. 41.

page 1429 note 143 Id.

page 1429 note 144 Id., p. 11, para. 43.

page 1429 note 145 Mr Simeroth, Transcript Day 5, pp. 1270-71, 1279-1281, 1290, 1299-1300.

page 1438 note 1 Second Am. Claim at Part VI.

page 1438 note 2 Id., para. 144.

page 1438 note 3 E.g., Transcript Day 8, p. 1911 (lines 12-17)

page 1438 note 4 Second Am. Claim, para. 146.

page 1438 note 5 Ibid.

page 1438 note 6 Id., paras. 149-157.

page 1438 note 7 Id., para. 152.

page 1438 note 8 Id., para. 146 (citing Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 502 (1983)).

page 1438 note 9 Widespread use of MTBE did not begin until after the passage of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, requiring that the areas of the United States with sub-standard air quality use reformulated gasoline with an increased oxygen content. See John Froines et al., An Evaluation of the Scientific Peer-Reviewed Research and Literature on the Human Health Effects of MTBE, Its Metabolites, Combustion Products and Substitute Compounds, in U.C. Report Vol. II: Human Health Effects, p. 2 (4 JS tab 37); see also Arturo Keller et al., Executive Summary, Recommendations, Summary, in U.C. Report Vol. I: Summary & Recommendations, p. 15 (4 JS tab 36); Am. Defense, paras. 19-21.

page 1438 note 10 Second Am. Claim, para. 146 (citing Stats. 1984, Ch. 268, § 16.91, effective 30th June, 1984).

page 1438 note 11 Reply at tbl.l.

page 1438 note 12 Ibid

page 1438 note 13 Ibid.

page 1438 note 14 Cal. Air Resources Bd., An Overview of the Use of Oxygenates in Gasoline, at 1, 9-10 (September 1998) (2 JS tab 3); Letter from Tom Soto, P.S. Enterprises, to Assemblywoman Denise Moreno Ducheny (25th August 1997) (11 JS tab 221).

page 1438 note 15 For sample statements by interested parties, see Cal. Envtl. Policy Council, Public Hearing, Transcript of Proceedings: Meeting To Consider Staff Reports on the Environmental Fate and Transport and Potential Health Effects of Using Ethanol in California Reformulated Gasoline, at 69 (18th January 2000) (comments of Lloyd Forrest, TSS Consultants—a company involved in “risk assessment'’ for ethanol investors); Id., p. 70 (comments of Necy Sumait, Manager for Arkenol Holdings, an ethanol project).

page 1438 note 16 Second Am. Claim para. 278 (quoting California State Senator Tom Hayden, expressing a preference for a domestic fuel source).

page 1438 note 17 Reply, paras. 95-96. James Boyd, of the California Energy Commission (CEC), also spoke indirectly of interest in promoting an in-state industry, Second Am. Claim, para. 157.

page 1438 note 18 S. 1728 (Cal. 2002); Reply at tbl. 1, para. 100.

page 1438 note 19 Second Am. Claim, para. 152.

page 1438 note 20 A number of events prior to the passage of Senate Bill 521 raised concerns in California. Am. Defense, paras. 42, 45-47. These concerns regarding leaking USTs and water contamination yielded a number of proposed resolutions in 1997 and 1998, which were summarised in the UC Report. Graham E. Fogg et al., Impacts of MTBE on California Groundwater, in UC Report Vol. IV: Ground & Surface Water, App. A, pp. 69-71 (4 JS tab 39A). The Government's and public's perception of a significant threat was later articulated at the public hearings held in February 1999 to discuss the findings of the UC Report, e.g., Testimony of James Giannopoulos, Principal Engineer for SWRCB, Transcript of Proceedings: Public Hearing to Accept Public Testimony on the University of California's Report on the Health and Environmental Assessment of MTBE, at p. 216 (19th February 1999) (15 JS tab 22 at 761). Furthermore, evidence was presented corroborating the perceived threat, e.g., Fogg et al., supra, pp. 6, 25, 45; Graham E. Fogg, Expert Report Prepared for the Office of the Legal Advisor, US State Dep't, pp. 10-11, 38-39 (December 2003) (13 JS tab D); also 65 Fed. Reg. 16094 (24th March 2000) (18 JS tab 146).

page 1439 note 21 1999 Cal. Executive Order D-5-99, pmbl. (stating the basis for the order); e.g., Am. Defense, para. 123.

page 1439 note 22 Ibid. The subsequent regulations adopted by the California Air Reserve Board - the California Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3 (CaRFG3) standards - were similarly based upon the finding that MTBE leaking from USTs posed a threat that could not be addressed solely by upgrading the tanks. Cal. Air Reserve Bd., Res. 99-39, at pp. 6-7 (9th December 1999) (16 JS tab 24); Am. Defense, paras. 71-72. 32

page 1439 note 23 S. 521, 1997-98 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 1997) (enacted). Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 521, the proposed bill was analysed and commented on by the California EPA and its Air Reserve Board. E.g., Cal. EPA, Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment, Short Form Analsis of SB 521 (14th April 1997) (11 JS tab 248); Cal. EPA, Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment, Short Form Analysis of SB 521 (8th May 1997) (11 JS tab 249); Cal. Air Reserve Bd., Bill Analysis of SB 521 (4th April 1997) (11 JS tab 240); Cal. Air Reserve Bd., Bill Analysis of SB 521 (8th May 1997) (11 JS tab 242). It is not clear to what extent Methanex seeks to argue that Senate Bill 521 itself was a pretext. Methanex argues that the bill underfunded the UC Report and did not allocate sufficient time. Second Am. Claim, para. 112. Witnesses at the main hearing who were engaged in the study did not testify that the study was underfunded. Methanex also claims (though does little to substantiate) a tie from the ethanol lobby to Senator Mountjoy and in turn to his introduction of the Bill. Ibid. But Methanex does not make any direct assertion of Senate Bill 521 being a pretext - it is not one of the so-called challenged measures. Methanex notes, for example, that the 34 bill called for an objective, thorough study. Id., paras. 111-112.

page 1439 note 24 Second Am.Claim at Part III.

page 1439 note 25 Governor Davis was elected in November 1998. Senate Bill 521 was signed by his predecessor, Governor Pete Wilson, who Methanex has described as unwilling to “give ethanol a ‘marked advantage’ over all other oxygenates''. Second Am. Claim, para. 126. This supports the conclusion that Governor Wilson's approval of Senate Bill 521, which ultimately led to the removal of MTBE, was not intended to harm methanol or Methanex.

page 1439 note 26 Methanex has quoted the LA. Times as saying,”ADM wasn't a major campaign donor in California until last year [1998]”. Second Am. Claim, para. 217. The role of ADM is discussed further infra “Dot 4''. The Tribunal notes that elswhere Methanex argued that the ethanol lobby began trying to influence California politics as early as 1997. Transcript Day 1, p. 163 (lines 1-19).

page 1439 note 27 C£ Supp. Aff. of Robert T. Wright, 29th January 2003, para. 6 (12 JS tab A) (indicating that Senate Bill 521 was not the first legislative attempt); cf. also S. 1186, 1995-96 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 1995) (not enacted) (a bill introduced to prohibit use of 33 MTBE as a gasoline additive).

page 1439 note 28 Cal. Air Reserve Bd., Bill Analysis of SB 521 (8th May 1997) (11 JS tab 242) (indicating that the proposed Senate Bill 521 was amended, eliminating an immediate ban).

page 1439 note 29 Second Am. Claim at Section VI.E; Transcript Day 1, p. 195 (lines 8-10) (“[M]ethanol, because of ADM's contributions to Davis, was denied the best treatment accorded to ethanol”.).

page 1439 note 30 Infra “Dot 4“; “Dot 5”.

page 1439 note 31 United States v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming convictions for conspiring to violate § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) (21 JS tab 3). In 1996 ADM agreed to plead guilty to price-fixing charges and to pay a fine of one hundred million dollars to the US government. ADM was also one of five companies fined by the European Commission for operating a price-fixing cartel. Second Am. Claim para. 214; Grain Group to Pay $100m Fines, Fin. Times (London), 15th October 1996, at 1 (7 JS tab 105); Press Release, European Commission, Commission Fines ADM, Ajinomoto, Others in Lysine Cartel (7th June 2000) (7 JS tab 95).

page 1439 note 32 The Tribunal notes, by way of background which is illuminating but not pertinent to this decision, that various countries allow private contributions, including Australia, France, Brazil, India, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Germany. Over the past decade, many countries that allow political giving have placed new restrictions on corporate donations and have required increased disclosure. For example, Japan introduced various limits in the 1990s; Germany and France introduced new campaign finance requirements more recently.

page 1439 note 33 As further background material, the Tribunal notes that there are countries that do not allow corporations to make campaign contributions. France, for example, banned donations from private sector corporations in 1995. Some countries, like Canada and the UK, also place some limits on the amounts that can be spent on campaigns. The laws in the United States are more liberal than most other countries. For such background discussion, see, for example, Karl-Heinz Nassmacher, Party Funding in Continental Western Europe, in Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns 117-37 (Int'l Inst. For Democracy & Electoral Assistance, Reginald Austin & Maya Tjernstrom eds., 2004).

page 1439 note 34 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a); McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 124 S.Ct. 619, 694 n.86 (2003) (23 JS tab 36).

page 1439 note 35 It is a matter of background material not pertinent to the decision at-hand that more than half of states currently do allow for such contributions, albeit generally in limited amounts. For such background materials, see Brief of Amici Curiae, States of Iowa et al. at 22, McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003) (No. 02-1674 et al.) (citing background materials); Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, How States Regulate Money in Elections, at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/about/campfin.htm.

page 1439 note 36 E.g., Second Am. Claim, para. 143.

page 1439 note 37 As of 1996 California state law only limited contributions for special elections. In November 1996, California voters approved Proposition 208 which amended the Political Reform Act of 1974 and established, among other things, limits on campaign contributions. However, Proposition was enjoined by a US District Court in January 1998, California ProLife Council PAC v. Scully, 989 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1998). E.g., Letter from Dick Vind to Marty Andreas (16th July 1998)(mentioning Proposition 208 and the district court's decision) (5 JS tab 58).

page 1439 note 38 Cal. Sec'y of State, Political Reform Division, at http:// www.ss.ca.gov/prd/prd.htm (16 JS tab 34). During the relevant time period for this case, the central disclosure requirements were set forth by California's Political Reform Act of 1974.Cal. Gov. Code § 81000 et seq.

page 1440 note 39 The general statutory instrument for California election law may be found at Cal Gov. Code § 84200 et seq.

page 1440 note 40 Cal. Gov. Code § 84600 et seq.; Am. Defense, para. 180, n.33.

page 1440 note 41 E.g., Second Am. Claim, para. 143. In the Partial Award, the Tribunal noted that Methanex had not argued that any violations of US or California campaign contribution or criminal law had taken place. Partial Award para. 70. During the main hearing, Methanex again conceded that it could not establish any “quid pro quo”. Transcript Day 1, pp. 135, 180.

page 1440 note 42 Reply at Sub-section II.B.3. Earlier in the Reply, Methanex stated, it was ‘ ‘improper influence—bought by ADM's contributions—that triggered Davis‘[s] MTBE ban in the first place”. Id., para. 5.

page 1440 note 43 Transcript Day 1, p. 135 (line 8).

page 1440 note 44 Id., p. 136 (line 15) (internal quotation marks omitted); Reply, para. 69.

page 1440 note 45 Transcript Day 2, p. 409 (lines 1-21); Rejoinder, para. 72 (emphasis added).

page 1440 note 46 Reply, para. 70; Transcript Day 1, p. 184 (lines 1-5) (“Methanex submits that … in California between 1999 and 2000 … [t]he United States ethanol industry captured the quid pro quo process and used it for its own ends”.).

page 1440 note 47 Cal. Penal Code § 68; Rejoinder, para. 72 .

page 1440 note 48 Reply, para. 3 (emphasis added).

page 1440 note 49 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003).

page 1440 note 50 E.g., Reply, paras. 42^4.

page 1440 note 51 McConnell, 124 S.Ct. at 626-27 (regarding the constitutionality of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155). The BCRA-codified at 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Communications Act of 1934, and other portions of the United States Code. Id.,

page 1440 note 52 McConnell, 124 S.Ct. at 628.

page 1440 note 53 2 U.S.C. § 441i(a); McConnell (discussing § 441i and other sections discussed below). Soft money refers simply to political donations that are given in such a way as to avoid legal regulation. Following the BCRA, all donations - including those to political parties for supposedly general “party building” activities - are subject to regulation.

page 1440 note 54 E.g., 2 U.S.C. §§ 441i(d); 441i(e).

page 1440 note 55 E.g., 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2).

page 1440 note 56 Only a handful of BCRA's provisions apply to state-level politics. For example, candidates and state or local parties cannot accept “soft money'’ donations from foreign nationals. 2 U.S.C. § 441e. Also, any campaign activity a state political party engages in on behalf of a federal candidate must be paid for with “hard money” (i.e., money that is raised subject to the legal constraints on political contributions). 2 U.S.C. §§ 431(20)(A), 441i(b).

page 1440 note 57 E.g., Transcript Day l,p. 131 (lines 1-6) (“Methanex believes that the Supreme Court's findings in that opinion and what was said by the Solicitor General, conclusively validate Methanex's position here”.); UL, p. 139 (lines 1-4) (describing it as a “permissible inference“). But at least at one point during the main hearing, Methanex seemed to acknowledge that McConnell alone could not supply the basis for an inference. Counsel for Methanex noted, “The issue is whether this type of political corruption that the Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court is referring to [in McConnell],took place here”. Transcript Day 1, p. 135 (lines 7-10) (emphasis added).

page 1440 note 58 E.g., McConnell, 124 S.Ct. at 628.

page 1440 note 59 Reply, para. 43 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Brief for the Federal Election Commission).

page 1440 note 60 McConnell, 124 S.Ct. at 664.

page 1440 note 61 E.g., Id., p. 648, 652.

page 1440 note 62 E.g., Transcript Day 2, pp. 410-11 (lines 16-21, 2-3).

page 1440 note 63 In two respects, Methanex argues by analogy - offering evidence that is one or more steps removed from the case before us. First, Methanex suggests that Mr Davis was influenced, on matters unrelated to ethanol, MTBE, or methanol, by financial contributions by other donors. Second Am. Claim, paras. 218- 220 (citing journalists’ opinion pieces to support these claims). Second, Methanex also points to ADM's practices of making political contributions and lobbying in other parts of the United States. E.g., Id. at para. 209 (noting contributions to federal candidates); Reply, para. 55 (describing ADM's characterisation of methanol as foreign). Methanex also tries to draw an attenuated connection between ADM and Senator Mountjoy, who authored Senate Bill 521. However, Methanex does not provide any information about any financial connection between ADM and Senator Mountjoy, and ultimately simply states that he had been “using the issue [of MTBE] to widen his political base”. Second Am. Claim, paras. 210-211. This could be true - Senator Mountjoy had long been involved in the issue and had authored a number of environmentally related bills - but the Tribunal cannot see how this conjecture assists Methanex's case.

page 1440 note 64 Transcript Day 1, p. 167 (lines 19-20).

page 1440 note 65 S. 521, 1997-98 Reg. Sess. § 3(f) (Cal. 1997) (enacted).

page 1440 note 66 Id., § 3(e).

page 1440 note 67 Second Am. Claim, para. 229; Transcript Day 1, pp. 167-68.

page 1440 note 68 Second Am.Claim, para. 229; Transcript Day 1, p. 168.

page 1440 note 69 Dan Morgan, In Energy Bill, A Daschle Nod to Key Farm States; Ethanol Provision Spurs Lobbying Fight, Wash. Post. 19th February 2002, at A4 (7 JS tab 120); Letter from Gray Davis, Governor of California, to Carol B. Browner, Administrator, U.S. EPA (12th April 1999) (6 JS tab 62); Am. Defense, paras. 64-67. The Executive Order itself required state agencies to seek a waiver of the federal reformulated gasoline oxygenate requirement; this would allow California to meet air quality standards without using ethanol. 1999 Cal. Executive Order D-5-99 para. 2; Transcript Day 2, pp. 293-94 (lines 18-21, 1-3).

page 1440 note 70 Cal. S. Comm. on Envtl. Quality, Analysis of S. 989, 1999-2000 Reg. Sess., 12th April 1999 (18 JS tab 129); S. 989, 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 1999) (enacted).

page 1440 note 71 E.g., Transcript Day 1, p. 179.

page 1440 note 72 Cal. Sec'y of State, Candidates for Constitutional Offices Complete Financial Activity (1998 Election), http://www.ss.ca.gov/prd/finance98_general_final/financial_const.htm (16 JS tab 32 at 1275).

page 1440 note 73 Am. Defense, para. 178 (citing relevant contribution documents); Transcript Day 2, at 412 (lines 5-20) (“[T]he record contains evidence showing that Arco contributed approximately the same amount as did … ADM … to Governor Davis's campaign”.). As a foreign corporation, Methanex and its US subsidiaries were, by law, prohibited from contributing to Davis's campaign (or to other state or federal elections).Nonetheless, according to at least one source, Methanex Corporation's US subsidiary tried to donate $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee and $15,000 to the Republican National Committee. Damon Chappie, Republicans Return Illegal Donation from Canadian Company, Roll Call, 21st October 1996, at 1 (25 JS tab 10 at 2938-39).

page 1441 note 74 E.g., Second Am. Claim, paras. 222-232; Reply at Sub-section II.B.5 (“Gray Davis Meets the U.S. Ethanol Industry“).

page 1441 note 75 E.g., Transcript Day 1, p. 237 (lines 8-12) (explaining that Methanex's view is that the Executive Order “flowed” from ADM's contributions and from the August 4th dinner meeting).

page 1441 note 76 Transcript Day 4, p. 847 (line 17) (Mr Roger Listenberger); Second Am. Claim, para. 222 (draft itinerary allotted less than two hours).

page 1441 note 77 Witness Statement of Richard Vind, 21st November 2003, para. 2 (13A JS tab I).

page 1441 note 78 Transcript Day 4, pp. 988 (line 7), 991 (line 4) (Mr Richard Vind).

page 1441 note 79 Id., p. 992 (lines 1-2) .

page 1441 note 80 Transcript Day 1, p. 180 (lines 11-14).

page 1441 note 81 E.g., Reply, para. 61.

page 1441 note 82 E.g., Second Am. Claim, paras. 223-227.

page 1441 note 83 E.g., id_, para. 228 (noting that participants in the meeting were “known to have condemned methanol… as a ‘foreign' product“).

page 1441 note 84 Am. Defense, para. 126, n.218 (citing proper forms, on record at 18 JS tab 28). There was no obligation to make further disclosures. Id., paras. 177, 180; Rejoinder, paras. 59-60; Transcript Day 2, p. 402 (lines 8-20); McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 272 (1991); Bruce v. Riddle, 631 F.2d 272, 280 (4th Cir. 1980).

page 1441 note 85 Transcript Day 4, p. 800 (lines 10-11) (Ms Claudia Callaway).

page 1441 note 86 E.g., Second Am. Claim, para. 232 .

page 1441 note 87 Id., para. 223 (“It is apparent … that there was only one issue on the agenda for the meetings: ethanol”.).

page 1441 note 88 Discussion infra of their testimony.

page 1441 note 89 Transcript Day 4, p. 803 (lines 12-13) (Mr Roger Listenberger).

page 1441 note 90 Id., p. 775 (line 4).

page 1441 note 91 Id., p. 775 (lines 8-15).

page 1441 note 92 Id., p. 775 (lines 16-21).

page 1441 note 93 Id., p. 815 (Mr Daniel Weinstein).

page 1441 note 94 Id., p. 816-17.

page 1441 note 95 Id., p. 819 (lines 7-10).

page 1441 note 96 Id., pp. 820-821.

page 1441 note 97 Witness Statement of Richard Vind, 21st November 2003, para. 2.

page 1441 note 98 Id., para. 6.

page 1441 note 99 Id., paras. 9-11.

page 1441 note 100 E.g., Transcript Day 4, p. 803 (Iine4) (Mr Roger Listenberger).

page 1441 note 101 E.g., Witness Statement of Richard Vind, 21st November 2003, para. 9.

page 1441 note 102 E.g., Second Am. Claim, paras. 212, 228, 273-274.

page 1441 note 103 One participant group is paid lobbyists, which Methanex itself retained.

page 1441 note 104 Aff. of Robert T. Wright, 4th November 2002, para. 3 (Second Am. Claim at Exh. B); Supp. Aff. of Robert T. Wright, 29th January 2003, para. 13 (12 JS tab A).

page 1441 note 105 Aff. of Robert T. Wright, 4th November 2002, para. 3.

page 1441 note 106 Ibid.

page 1441 note 107 Cf Supp. Aff. of Robert T. Wright, 29th January 2003, para. 13.

page 1441 note 108 S. 521, 1997-98 Reg. Sess. § 3(e) (Cal. 1997) (enacted).

page 1441 note 109 Reply, para. 37, n. 54-55 (citing attachments to Mr Michael Macdonald's third affidavit); Memorandum from Susan McCabe, Brady & Berliner, to John Lynn (31st January 1998) (19 JS tab 13); Memorandum from Rose & Kindel (25th-29th January 1999) (19 JS tab 14A).

page 1441 note 110 Reply, para. 37 (citing January 1999 memos from Ms Susan McCabe of Brady&Berliner and from Rose & Kindel).

page 1441 note 111 IbId., (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Memorandum from Susan McCabe, Brady& Berliner, to John Lynn (31st January 1999), at 2).

page 1441 note 112 In addition to the Governor Davis's Executive Order, ultimate passage by the California government refers to S. 989, 1999- 2000 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 1999).

page 1441 note 113 1999 Cal. Executive Order D-5-99 paras. 2, 10.

page 1441 note 114 E.g., Davis v. U.S. EPA, 336 F.3d 965 (2003) (16 JS tab 41).

page 1442 note 1 For ease of reference, these and other provisions of NAFTA Chapter 11 are set out in full in Annex 4 to this Chapter.

page 1442 note 2 Second Am. Claim, para. 322.

page 1442 note 3 Ibid.

page 1442 note 4 Id., para. 323.

page 1442 note 5 Ibid.

page 1442 note 6 See id., para. 324.

page 1442 note 7 Id., para 327.

page 1449 note 1 Draft Amended Statement of Claim at Sections I.A-I.B.

page 1449 note 2 Second Am. Claim, para. 300 (citing Expert Op. of Robert Jennings, 4th November 2002, at p. 10 (Second Am. Claim, Exhibit C).

page 1449 note 3 Expert Op. of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, 4th November 2002 (Second Am. Claim Exhibit D).

page 1449 note 4 European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (Eur. Comm. v. Can.), WT/ DS135/AB/R (hereinafter Asbestos), (2001) 40 ILM 1408 (Second Am. Claim App., 3 LA tab 79).

page 1449 note 5 S. D. Myers v. Canada, Partial Award, (2001) 40 ILM 1193 (Second Am. Claim App., 4 LA tab 97).

page 1449 note 6 Second Am. Claim, para. 301.

page 1449 note 7 Id., para. 303.

page 1449 note 8 E.g., Second Am. Claim at Section V.B.

page 1449 note 9 Reply, para. 27 (citing U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Oxygenate Identification (22 JS tab 20)); Second Am. Claim, para. 70.

page 1449 note 10 E.g., Second Am. Claim, paras. 78-80; Reply, para. 236.

page 1449 note 11 Second Am. Claim, para. 80; Reply, para. 23; see also Contract Between Methanex Methanol Company and Valero Refining and Marketing Company (Second Am. Claim, Exhibit A tab 1).

page 1449 note 12 E.g., Second Am. Claim at Section V.B.

page 1449 note 13 Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Canada, Final Award, paras. 39-42 (NAFTA 2001) (Second Am. Claim, App., 4 LA tab 92).

page 1449 note 14 Second Am. Claim, paras. 308-312.

page 1449 note 15 Ibid.

page 1449 note 16 Reply, para. 188.

page 1449 note 17 United States —Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline,(US v. Braz.), WT/DSZ/AB/R (WTO 1996) (Reply App. LA tab 15).

page 1449 note 18 In re Cross-Border Trucking Services, Final Report (NAFTA 2001) (discussed at Transcript Day 1, pp. 14, 38-39 (Mr Dugan for Methanex) and on record during the jurisdictional phase).

page 1449 note 19 E.g., Reply, paras. 191-197.

page 1449 note 20 E.g., Second Am. Claim, para. 294.

page 1449 note 21 E.g., Id., para. 298.

page 1449 note 22 E.g., ibid.

page 1449 note 23 E.g., Am. Defense at Section III.B.

page 1449 note 24 Reply, para. 168.

page 1449 note 25 Rejoinder, para. 152.

page 1449 note 26 Id., para. 154.

page 1449 note 27 See Canada's Fourth Article 1128 Submission, para. 11.

page 1449 note 28 Transcript Day 2, at p. 265.

page 1449 note 29 First Expert Report of Mr Burke, para. 66.

page 1449 note 30 Pope&Talbot, Inc., paras. 87-88.

page 1449 note 31 Second Am. Claim, para. 308.

page 1449 note 32 E.g., Second Am. Claim, paras. 298-301 (citing Expert Op. of Robert Jennings, 4th November 2002, at p. 10 for its discussion of the applicability of GATT jurisprudence and citing Expert Op. of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, 4th November 2002, para. 24 for its explanation that GATT jurisprudence identifies “like products” on the basis of “competitive relationships between and among products“); see generally id. at Section V.B (arguing that methanol and ethanol are essentially interchangeable and present consumers with a “binary choice“).

page 1449 note 33 Id., para. 304.

page 1449 note 34 Am. Defense, paras. 138-140 (asserting that methanol and ethanol are not essentially interchangeable and disagreeing with Methanex's contention that the products directly compete).

page 1449 note 35 E.g., id., paras. 142, 147-148 (discussing why methanol is not and cannot be used as an oxygenate in gasoline).

page 1449 note 36 E.g., id., para. 318.

page 1449 note 37 Id., para. 323.

page 1449 note 38 Id., para. 322.

page 1449 note 39 Id., paras. 11,282.

page 1449 note 40 Id., paras. 302-304.

page 1449 note 41 Asbestos, para. 101.

page 1449 note 42 Am. Defense, paras. 309-325.

page 1449 note 43 Id., paras. 326-342.

page 1449 note 44 Am. Defense, para. 331 (citing Asbestos, para. 92).

page 1449 note 45 Reply, para. 173.

page 1449 note 46 Id., para. 177.

page 1450 note 47 Id., para. 187.

page 1450 note 48 Id., paras. 188-190.

page 1450 note 49 Id., paras. 191-192.

page 1450 note 50 Brief of Amicus Curiae, International Institute for Sustainable Development, para. 34 (9th March 2004).

page 1450 note 51 Articles 301 (National Treatment) and 309 (Import and Export Restrictions), and the provisions of Article XX(b) of the GATT as incorporated into Article 2101(1) (General Exceptions), do not apply to any sanitary or phytosanitary measure.

page 1450 note 52 These investments are: “(a) an enterprise; (b) an equity security of an enterprise; (c) a debt security of an enterprise c(i) where the enterprise is an affiliate of the investor, or (ii) where the original maturity of the debt security is at least three years, but does not include a debt security, regardless of original maturity, of a state enterprise; (d) a loan to an enterprise (i) where the enterprise is an affiliate of the investor, or (ii) where the original maturity of the loan is at least three years, but does not include a loan, regardless of original maturity, to a state enterprise; (e) an interest in an enterprise that entitles the owner to share in income or profits of the enterprise; (f) an interest in an enterprise that entitles the owner to share in the assets of that enterprise on dissolution, other than a debt security or a loan excluded from subparagraph (c) or (d); (g) real estate or other property, tangible or intangible, acquired in the expectation or used for the purpose of economic benefit or other business purposes; and (h) interests arising from the commitment of capital or other resources in the territory of a Party to economic activity in such territory, such as under (i) contracts involving the presence of an investor's property in the territory of the Party, including turnkey or construction contracts, or concessions, or (ii) contracts where remuneration depends substantially on the production, revenues or profits of an enterprise; …”.

page 1454 note 1 Second Am. Claim, para. 313; see id., para. 314 (referencing the NAFTA award in S.D. Myers ).

page 1454 note 2 Id., para. 315.

page 1454 note 3 Reply, paras. 203-204; see generally Free Trade Commission Clarifications Related to NAFTA Chapter 11, 31'1 July 2001.

page 1454 note 4 Id., para. 205; see id., para. 206.

page 1454 note 5 Transcript Day 8, p. 1854 (lines 6-7).

page 1454 note 6 Id. at p. 1855 (lines 16-18).

page 1454 note 7 Expert Op. of Robert Jennings, 6th September 2001 (Methanex's Submission in Response to the NAFTA Free Trade Commission Interpretation, 18th September 2001, Exh. 1).

page 1454 note 8 Am. Defense at Part IV A.

page 1454 note 9 See id., para. 365.

page 1454 note 10 See, e.g., id., paras. 366-370.

page 1454 note 11 Waste Mgmt. Inc. v. Mexico, Arb (AF)/00/3, paras. 98-99 (ICSID 2004);e.g., Transcript Day 8, pp. 1939, 1944 (Mr Dugan for Methanex); Transcript Day 9, pp. 2151-2153 (Ms Guymon for the USA).

page 1454 note 12 Transcript Day 8, pp. 1944-1945.

page 1454 note 13 Id. at pp. 1940-1942.

page 1454 note 14 See, e.g., Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, 5 ICSID Reports 209 (Second Am. Claim App., 3 LA tab 85); S. D. Myers v. Canada, Partial Award 40 ILM 1408 (Second Am. Claim App., 4 LA tab 97); Mondev Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 6 ICSID Reports 181, 42 ILM 85 (Am. Defense App., 4 LA tab 61); The Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, 42 ILM 811 (Am. Defense App., 4 LA tab 58); ADF Group Inc. v. United States, 6 ICSID Reports 470, (Am. Defense App., I LA tab 2).

page 1454 note 15 Mondev Int'l Ltd., paras. 120-121.

page 1454 note 16 ADF Group Inc., para. 184.

page 1454 note 17 The Loewen Group, Inc., para. 132.

page 1454 note 18 Expert Op. of Robert Jennings, 6th September 2001.

page 1454 note 19 Rejoinder, para. 186.

page 1454 note 20 The Washington Treaty of 8 May 1871 between the United Kingdom and the USA included agreement on three rules applicable to the United Kingdom as a neutral during the Civil War, which ensured that the United Kingdom would be held liable by the Geneva tribunal, even though these rules imposed higher duties than those previously accepted under international law (subject only to quantum and jurisdiction over the so-called “Indirect Claims“). See Bingham, Tom, The Alabama Claims Arbitration, 54 ICLQ 1 (2005)Google Scholar.

page 1455 note 21 See generally W. Michael Reisman, Nullity and Revision: The Review and Enforcement of International Judgments and Awards (1971).

page 1455 note 22 Rights of Asylum ( Colombia v. Peru), 1950 ICJ Rep. 266, 276 (US Reply Mem. on Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and the Proposed Amendment App., 1 LA tab 11).

page 1455 note 23 Waste Mgmt. Inc., para. 98.

page 1455 note 24 Id. (emphasis added).

page 1457 note 1 Second Am. Claim at Section VII.C; Reply, paras. 207-208,717.

page 1457 note 2 Second Am. Claim at Section VII.C; Reply, paras. 213-214.

page 1457 note 3 Second Am. Claim, paras. 317-320.

page 1457 note 4 See Am. Defense at Sections V.B-V.D.

page 1457 note 5 Sub-section III.D.l.

page 1458 note 6 See Rejoinder at Part V.

page 1458 note 7 Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, Arb(AF)/97/l, 5 ICSID Reports, 209, para. 103 (Second Am. Claim App., 3 LA tab 85); see Transcript Day 8, at 1949; Reply, para. 216.

page 1458 note 8 See Reply, paras. 218-221, 241.

page 1458 note 9 See Reply, para. 222; see also Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Canada, Interim Award, para. 96 (NAFTA 2000) (Am. Defense App., 4 LA tab 71); S. D. Myers v. Canada, Partial Award, para. 281 (NAFTA 2000) (Second Am. Claim App., 4 LA tab 97).

page 1458 note 10 Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Overseas Private Invest. Corp., 56 ILR 258, 17 ILM 1321, 1331, cited in Waste Mgmt. Inc. (2004).

page 1458 note 11 Waste Mgmt. Inc., 43 ILM 967, para. 98 (emphasis added).

page 1458 note 12 See Aff. of Robert T. Wright, 4th November 2002, para. 1 (Second Am. Claim Exh. B).

page 1458 note 13 See supra Chapter III B (noting, for example, that California's application for a waiver from the Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirement was inconsistent with the allegation that California intended to injure MTBE and methanol producers in order to transfer the market to the ethanol industry or to encourage the development of an ethanol industry in California).

page 1458 note 14 Feldman v. Mexico, Arb(AF)/99/l, para. 152 (ICSID 2002) (Am. Def. App., 3 LA tab 33).

page 1458 note 15 Pope & Talbot Inc., para. 96.

page 1458 note 16 Gillian White, Nationalisation of Foreign Property 49 (1961), cited at Am. Defense, para. 169, fn. 622.

page 1461 note 1 E.g., Am. Defense, paras. 109-110; Rejoinder, paras. 16-20; id. at Section LA.

page 1461 note 2 Transcript Day 2, pp. 477-478.

page 1461 note 3 E.g., Am. Defense, para. III; id. at Section I.B.; Rejoinder at Section II.B.

page 1461 note 4 E.g., Rejoinder, paras. 5, 18; id. at Section II.B.

page 1461 note 5 E.g., Id., para. 42.

page 1461 note 6 E.g., Am. Defense at Section I.B (citing Mr Caldwell and Mr Burke); see also Bruce Burke, First Expert Report (December 2003) (13 JS tab B); Witness Statement of James W. Caldwell, 1st December 2003 (13 JS tab C).

page 1461 note 7 Am. Defense at Section I.B.

page 1461 note 8 Rejoinder, para. 36.

page 1461 note 9 Id., para. 46. But cf. Am. Defense, para. 162.

page 1461 note 10 Am. Defense at Sub-Section I.B.3; Rejoinder at Sub-Section I.B.2.

page 1461 note 11 Am. Defense at Section I.C.

page 1461 note 12 M at Sub-section I.C.5., paras. 196-199.

page 1461 note 13 E.g., Rejoinder, paras. 12, 124.

page 1461 note 14 Id., para. 62.

page 1461 note 15 Uncitral Rules, Art. 24(1) (“Each party shall have the burden of proving the facts relied on to support his claim or defence.“).

page 1461 note 16 Article 9(5) of the IB A Rules provides: “If a Party fails without satisfactory explanation to make available any other relevant evidence, including testimony, sought by one Party to which the Party to whom the request was addressed has not objected in due time or fails to make available any evidence, including testimony, ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal to be produced, the Arbitral Tribunal may infer that such evidence would be adverse to the interests of that Party.”(Methanex concedes that Article 9 of the IB A Rules has no direct application as there had been no agreement to apply this part of the IBA Rules in the joint letter of the Disputing Parties dated 14th August 2000.)

page 1461 note 17 Rejoinder, para. 62.

page 1461 note 18 Second Am. Claim, paras. 19-22.

page 1461 note 19 Id., paras. 142-143.

page 1461 note 20 Transcript Day 1, at pp. 71 (lines 7-8), 70 (lines 18-19); Reply, para. 79.

page 1461 note 21 Transcript Day 1, at p. 72 (lines 6-17).

page 1461 note 22 Reply, para. 108.

page 1461 note 23 Id., para. 156.

page 1461 note 24 Id., para. 157.

page 1461 note 25 Id., para. 94.

page 1461 note 26 Testimony of Michael P. Kenny, Exec. Off., Cal. Air Res. Bd., for U.S. Senate, Comm. on Envt'l& Pub. Works, Subcomm. on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Prop.& Nuclear Safety, at p. 6 (23 JS tab 45).

page 1461 note 27 Second Am. Claim, para. 159.

page 1461 note 28 Transcript Day 1, at p. 177 (lines 3-8); Witness Statement of Roger Listenberger, 24th October 2003 (13 JS tab F).

page 1461 note 29 Transcript Day 1, p. 177.

page 1461 note 30 E.g., Id., p. 180.

page 1461 note 31 Id., p. 181.

page 1461 note 32 Ibid.

page 1461 note 33 E.g., Id., p. 123; Transcript Day 8, pp. 1799-1800.

page 1464 note 1 Article 39(1) requires the fees of the arbitral tribunal to be reasonable in amount, taking into account inter alia the time spent by the arbitrators.

page 1464 note 2 Wetter, & Priem, , “Costs and their Allocation in Internationa Commercial Arbitrations” (1991) 2 Am Rev Int Arb 249 Google Scholar.