Treaties — Chile–Malaysia Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1992 — Fair and equitable treatment provision — Most-favoured-nation clause — Standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether obligation to grant planning permission part of fair and equitable treatment — Whether obligation to observe contractual obligations part of fair and equitable treatment — Investment approved for a project against current government policy

Foreign investment — Investment in land zoned as rural — Urban planning — Whether authorization to invest in specified land giving rise to legitimate expectation that change of use possible — Respective roles of foreign investment authority and planning authority

Jurisdiction — Fork-in-the-road provision — Claim in domestic courts — Where cause of action in domestic court different from treaty claim — Whether dispute treaty-based

Jurisdiction — Taxation measures generally excluded from BIT protection — Whether non-reimbursement of VAT matter of taxation — Whether exclusion only applying to matters of direct taxation — Whether participation contract an investment agreement — Where contract rights not directly invoked before Tribunal — Whether tax matter associated with an investment agreement excluded

Jurisdiction — Admissibility — Expropriation — Whether claim to a VAT refund an investment — Whether deprivation of use or reasonably expected economic benefit of investment — Whether prima facie case of expropriation

Treaties — Ecuador–USA Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1993 — National treatment — VAT refunds for exporters — Whether comparison should be made between sectors of activity or exporters generally — Whether most-favoured-nation treatment obligations also breached

Treaties — Ecuador–USA Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1993 — Fair and equitable treatment — Stability of legal and business framework — Where framework changed without clarity about its effect — Standard of stability and predictability under international law — Whether breach of full protection and security

Remedies — Compensation — Entitlement to compensation for claim not made on grounds of futility — Interest

Arbitration — Application to set aside arbitral award — Excess of jurisdiction — Non-justiciability — Whether application to set aside arbitral award non-justiciable — Nature of BIT arbitration — Whether BIT conferring direct rights on investor — Agreement to arbitrate — Applicable law of agreement to arbitrate — Whether application concerned with transactions between States — Whether unincorporated BIT can be interpreted by English court — Where Arbitration Act giving right to make application — Application of principles in Buttes Gas and International Tin Council cases

Nationality — Individual investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) and (2)(b) — Laws applicable to determining nationality — Provision for determining nationality under Bilateral Investment Treaty — Application of domestic laws of State whose nationality investor claiming — Competence of Tribunal to apply domestic laws when deciding issues of jurisdiction

Municipal law — Loss of nationality through operation of Italian domestic law — Applicable domestic laws for reacquisition of Italian nationality — Whether Claimant complying with applicable domestic laws — Interpretation of “residence” in applicable domestic laws — Whether Claimant maintaining actual habitual residence in accordance with applicable domestic laws — Whether Claimant satisfying burden of proof

Nationality — Evidence — Whether Tribunal bound by rules of evidence in Italian civil procedure — Whether official documents of State authorities conclusive proof of nationality — ICSID Arbitration Rule 34(1) — Tribunal’s competence to judge admissibility and probative value of evidence

Treaties — Interpretation — Principles of interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31(1)

Arbitration — Jurisdiction of ICSID Tribunal — Application of most-favored-nation (“MFN”) clause in BIT — Whether MFN clause requiring Claimant to choose between one treaty and another

Arbitration — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Dispute arising “directly out of an investment” — Whether investment made directly or indirectly

Treaties — Standing — Whether Claimant having standing — Indirect investment — Whether definition of investment excluding indirect investments

Arbitration — Notification of dispute — Definition of dispute — Hypothetical dispute — Historical dispute — Time at which a dispute must exist

Jurisdiction — Arbitration — ICSID Convention, Article 26 — Dispute under a treaty — Dispute under a contract — Jurisdiction clause in contract — Exclusivity of remedies

Jurisdiction — Disputes — Jurisdiction over disputes arising after BIT’s entry into force — Definition of “dispute” — Distinction between a single dispute and two separate disputes — Whether dispute concerning same subject matter — Whether res judicata status of court judgments put an end to the dispute

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Standing on behalf of unincorporated joint venture — “Juridical person” for purpose of ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Standing on behalf of other joint venture partners — Protected “investor” — Nationality — Other partners not nationals of other Contracting State to BIT — Two partners not nationals “of another Contracting State” for purpose of ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Standing of Claimant for its own share of loss

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Contract claims — Absence of “umbrella clause” — Generic dispute settlement clause in BIT — Consent to arbitration not encompassing contract between autonomous corporate body and investor — Most-favoured-nation clause — No extension of consent

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Treaty claims — Effect of contractual dispute resolution clauses — Treaty claims not excluded — Objective test for jurisdiction — Onus on Claimant to establish breach of BIT attributable to State — No jurisdiction over acts carried out by the State in its capacity as party to a contract — Decision on jurisdiction over acts carried out by the State in exercise of sovereign authority deferred to merits phase — ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(4)

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Absence of provision for retroactivity — Treaty dispute after entry into force of BIT — Applicable law — Law in force at time of performance of act allegedly in breach of BIT

Arbitration — Precedent — Absence of rule of precedent in general international law — Legal foundation of dispute — Lex specialis — Whether Tribunal should consider decisions and opinions of other arbitration tribunals

Interpretation — Article 25(1) of ICSID Convention — Legal dispute arising directly from investment — Definition of legal dispute — Intrinsic definition and inherent logic — Whether dealing with legal issues that manifest evident disagreement — Whether claims substantial

Interpretation — Article 25(1) of ICSID Convention — Legal dispute arising directly from investment — Interpretation of directness — Differing interpretation of “directness” under NAFTA Chapter 11 and ICSID Convention — Directness under ICSID Convention concerning relationship of dispute to investment

Interpretation — Article I(1)(b) of US–Argentina BIT — Meaning of “investor” — Whether AES Corporation proper claimant — Nationality of claimant company — Inapplicability of Article 42 of ICSID Convention to issue of nationality

Jurisdiction — Whether prior exhaustion of local negotiations or remedies precondition for ICSID jurisdiction — Application of Article VII of BIT requiring initial negotiations — Prior exhaustion of local remedies under Article 26 of ICSID Convention only a condition for consent

Admissibility — Documentary evidence — Production of expert and witness reports to evidence status and ownership of investment — Probative value of submitted material — ICSID Arbitration Rule 34

Jurisdiction — Whether forum selection clauses precluding ICSID arbitration — Waiver — Diplomatic protection — Admissibility of “Calvo Clause” waiver in ICSID arbitration

Jurisdiction — Whether breach of contract or breach of treaty — Whether conduct of State organ an act of State — Whether corporate rights an asset — Whether contractual rights to IPO an asset — Whether waiver of BIT claims — Whether breach of BIT by omission as well as by act — Relevance of umbrella clause

Expropriation — Change in privatization strategy — Whether breach of obligation to treat fairly and equitably — Whether breach of obligation to provide full security and protection — Relevance of umbrella clause

Provisional measures — Interim measures of protection — Apparent basis of jurisdiction — Irreparable damage — Freezing of accounts and attachment of sums — Whether interim measures urgent — Where State action open to challenge before domestic courts — Whether interim measures necessary

Jurisdiction — Consent to arbitration — Notice of arbitration — Whether consent in notice of arbitration sufficient — Waiver of claims in domestic courts — Whether waiver in notice of arbitration sufficient — Whether defect in waiver affecting jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Investment — Indirect investment — Investment held through third State subsidiary — Subsidiary sold while arbitration pending

Jurisdiction — Taxation measures excluded from BIT protection — Whether indirect taxes excluded — Whether entitlement to VAT refund or credit a taxation measure

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Whether taxation law a taking of property — Whether taxation law “extraordinary, punitive in amount or arbitrary in its incidence”

Expropriation — Right to VAT refund — Amendment of law to clarify that VAT refunds not payable — Whether refusal of refund the repudiation of a legal right — Relevance of right of domestic challenge to decisions of tax authorities

Costs — Discretion to order costs — Order for costs in favour of unsuccessful claimant — Whether just and equitable