Whether BG’s investment in MetroGAS qualified as an investment for the purpose of the Argentina-UK BIT (‘BIT’) in respect of which the Tribunal had jurisdiction. — Whether the measures introduced by Argentina breached the obligation of fair and equitable treatment pursuant to Article 2 of the BIT. — Whether such measures were justified by a state of necessity in accordance with the BIT and/or customary international law such as to exempt Argentina from liability for any breaches of the BIT. — What was the appropriate standard for determining damages and quantifying such damages.
Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals — Indirect expropriation — Shareholding — Investor — Specialized treaty frameworks — Arbitrariness — Fair and equitable treatment standard — National treatment — Damages — Costs and expenses
Whether governmental acts or omissions adversely affecting GAM, a Mexican company, could be considered as breaches of the
North American Free Trade Agreement
in that they reduced the value of the shareholding in GAM by GAMI, a United States company. — Whether Mexico's maladministration amounted to expropriation of GAMI's investment in GAM.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals — Investment
Whether a minority shareholding was sufficient to constitute an investment for the purposes of the Treaty Between the Argentine Republic and the United States of America Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment. — Whether and to what extent the investor had waived the right to international arbitration when concluding the Concession Agreement for Port Terminal No 3 which provided for national dispute settlement.