Consent to jurisdiction through treaties — Parties to the dispute (and jurisdiction) — Creeping expropriation — Expropriation of contract rights — Compensation — Regulatory expropriation (or regulatory taking) — Denial of benefits clause — Indirect ownership — Existence of a dispute — UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules — Claims — Concurring, dissenting, separate, joint or individual opinions — Fork in the road clause — Discounted cash flow (DCF), anticipated future profits — Interest — Nationality of corporations — Exhaustion of local remedies — Consent to jurisdiction — Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) — Time limitations (and jurisdiction) — Jurisdiction — Definition of investment — Control — Nationality of investor — Ownership — Fair and equitable treatment standard — BITs (Bilateral Investment Treaties) — Pacta sunt servanda — Nationality of the claimant (and admissibility) — Valuation
Core Issue(s)
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.
