Consent to jurisdiction (express) — Consent to jurisdiction through treaties — Parties to the dispute (and jurisdiction) — Creeping expropriation — Expropriation of contract rights — Prompt, adequate and effective compensation (Hull Formula) — Public purpose (expropriation and) — Denial of benefits clause — Indirect ownership — Mootness (and admissibility) — UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules — Incidental & additional claims — Dissenting opinion — Fork in the road clause — Discounted cash flow (DCF), anticipated future profits — Interest — Interest, compound/simple — Nationality of corporations — Exhaustion of local remedies — Consent to jurisdiction — Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) — Time limitations (and jurisdiction) — International courts and tribunals, jurisdiction — Investment defined in treaties — Control — Nationality of investor — Nationality of investor, corporations — Nationality of investor, relevant time — Ownership — Fair and equitable treatment standard — Compensation — BITs (Bilateral Investment Treaties) — Pacta sunt servanda — Nationality of the claimant (and admissibility) — Interest, rate of — Valuation
Whether the joinder of identical claims based on the alleged breach of different investment treaties in a single arbitration proceeding required the Respondent’s consent. — Whether the United Kingdom/Bolivia BIT allowed claims by holders of an indirect investment. — Whether the Claimant’s ‘New Claims’ needed to comply with the notification and cooling-off-period requirements of the applicable bilateral investment treaties and whether some of these claims were domestic in nature and were premature. — Whether Bolivia was entitled to invoke the denial of benefits clause in the United States/Bolivia BIT against one of the Claimants. — Whether the alleged exercise of the fork in the road clause in the US/Bolivia BIT precluded the arbitration of certain claims.
World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Burden of proof (and jurisdiction) — Investment ‘in accordance with host state law’ — Investment defined in treaties — Treaties, interpretation — Ordinary meaning (treaty interpretation and) — Control — Good faith — Precedent — Abuse of process — Existence of a legal interest by the claimant (and admissibility) — Authority of previous decisions (precedents) — Rules of treaty interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Whether the definition of ‘investment’ was subject to a double test under both the applicable BIT and Article 25(1) of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (‘ICSID Convention’). — What elements comprised the objective definition of ‘investment’ under Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention. — To what extent a host state that engaged in settlement discussions with an investor was estopped from contesting the legality of the investment. — Which party bore the burden of proof when the legality of the investment was at issue and on what basis this should have been judged.