Exhaustion of local remedies — Standard of review — Time limitations (and jurisdiction) — Burden of proof — International criminal law, evidence — Investment — Abuse of rights — Denial of justice — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — Authority of previous decisions (precedents) — UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules — Arbitrability — Relevant date (and jurisdiction) — Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) — International courts and tribunals, jurisdiction — Investment defined in treaties — Investment defined in tribunal practice — BITs (Bilateral Investment Treaties) — Treaties, entry into force
Whether the claimants’ statements or conduct prior to the commencement of arbitration should have any preclusive effect on their ability to pursue arbitration. — Whether the claimants’ contractual claims in the lawsuits in Ecuadorian courts qualified as an investment or part of an investment under the Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (‘BIT’). — Whether the claimants had to exhaust local remedies in order to fulfil the requirements of their claims for denial of justice and other BIT violations, and if so, whether they had in fact exhausted all required local remedies. — Whether the claimants’ claims were caught within the temporal ambit of the BIT, despite their basis in a factual background that included significant periods before the BIT’s entry into force.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) — Expropriation — Shareholding — Most-favoured-nation (MFN), procedural matters — Fair and equitable treatment standard — Ultra Vires conduct, necessity, emergency — Compensation — Dissenting opinion — Waiting period—attempt to settle in domestic courts for period of time
Whether the dispute settlement provisions of another bilateral investment treaty (‘BIT’) can be imported through the operation of the MFN clause of the governing treaty in order to waive a jurisdictional requirement. — Whether an investor could bring a claim as a shareholder of a domestic company under a BIT. — Whether termination of a concession contract could amount to a breach of the Treaty between Italy and Argentina on the Promotion and Protection of Investments 1990, and notably its fair and equitable treatment standard. — The scope of the ‘state of necessity’ defence and the conditions for invoking it.