Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the claims advanced, as regards ratione temporis, ratione personae, and ratione materiae.
Whether the Claimant had advanced claims only upon its own behalf or also on behalf of its subsidiaries and, consequently, whether it had obtained the relevant consents and waivers as required by Articles XIII(1) and XIII(2) of the Agreement of 29 April 1996 between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Ecuador for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (‘Canada/Ecuador BIT’).
Whether the requirement under Article I(g) of the Canada/Ecuador BIT that ‘investment’ in the host State be made ‘in accordance with the latter’s laws’ imposed an obligation on the investor to comply with the law of the host State throughout the life of the investment, or only in its acquisition.
Whether the termination of the Claimant’s Junín mining concession amounted to expropriation of the Claimant’s investment.
Whether the Respondent’s actions in relation to the Junín concession amounted to a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard or the national treatment standard, or a failure to accord the Claimant’s investment full protection and security.
Whether the Claimant’s actions in relation to the Junín concession contributed to the injury which it suffered under Article 39 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
Whether the Respondent’s actions in relation to the Chaucha concession amounted to an indirect expropriation under Article VIII(1) of the Canada/Ecuador BIT.
What quantum of compensation was appropriate for the damage suffered by the Claimant, taking into account the Tribunal’s findings in relation to contributory fault.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
to access all content.